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.
So you are suggesting that Protestant churches are satanic in origin???
Would Christ wish to see His Church torn and shattered into 33,000 little "churches?" The underlying message of Protestantism suggests that the Church Christ established was in apostasy from the beginning.
Obviously, both can't be true.
And what if you’re wrong??? Suppose the Holy Spirit is leading people to the Protestant churches...
Why would He do that? Because His Church is not true, but Protestant "churches" are? And which one of the 33,000 Protestant "churches" is the "true" one? Or are they all true a little bit, some more others less? Syncretism and pantheism did not come from God, that's for sure. So I am not worried about being wrong.
You could be in a heap of trouble...
So could the Protestants.
LOL!!!!!! At least you have a sense of humor.
Which Jesus: Jesus according to the Arians, Jesus according to the Nestorians, Jesus according to the Monophysites, Jesus according to the Monothelites or Jesus according to the Catholics?
-A8
Through the past 2,000 years, the historic creeds of Christendom have been developed by the believing faithful in order to combat error and heresies. Some creeds got it more correct than others. And this we can see by comparing them to the word of God.
It's just not that difficult.
And...
While, however, the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scriptures teach upon every subject into a consistent whole, and then adjust their teachings upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system. Every student of the Bible must do this...""It is asserted in the first chapter of this Confession [The Westminster Confession of Faith], and vindicated in this exposition that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of God, are for man in his present state the only and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. All that man is to believe concerning God, and the entire duty which God requires of man, are revealed therein, and are to be believed and obeyed because contained therein, because it is the word of God. This divine word, therefore, is the only standard of doctrine which has intrinsic authority binding the conscience of men. And all other standards are of value or authority only in proportion as they teach what the Scriptures teach.
Only the Catholic Church can trace her origin back to the incarnate Christ.
I do not recognize much of Christ in the current "Catholic Church."
Instead I see Mary as "co-redeemer," and prayers to assorted dead people, and fables such as limbo and purgatory, and a usurper presuming to sit as head of Christ's church on earth, and various idolatries encouraged, and most especially, I see the Biblical truth of justification by the faith of Jesus Christ alone being denied and brazenly turned into a works-based salvation doled out by imposters who have the astounding hubris to call themselves "another Christ" -- all of which corrupts the word of God and denies the power and truth of the Holy Spirit to work sanctification in the hearts and minds of those who have been called to liberty by His will.
This doctrine (justification by faith alone) is not learned or gotten by any study, diligence, or wisdom of man, but it is revealed by God Himself." -- Martin Luther
"I had hanging on my neck the pope, the universities, all the deep learned, and the devil; these hunted me into the Bible, wherein I sedulously read..."
And there in Scripture the truth was revealed to Luther by the power of God and the wisdom of God...
"Whilst a man is persuaded that he has it in his power to contribute anything, be it ever so little, to his salvation, he remains in carnal self-confidence; he is not a self-despairer, and therefore is not duly humbled before God, he believes he may lend a helping hand in his salvation, but on the contrary, whoever is truly convinced that the whole work depends singly on the will of God, such a person renounces his own will and strength; he waits and prays for the operation of God, nor waits and prays in vain..." -- Luther
As I've come to realize through these threads, the RCC teaches that the Holy Spirit only speaks through the magisterium and its portioning out of its sacraments.
But Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit is given to each believer, personally. And this is verified by how closely our Christian walk parallels the words of God. We are known by our fruit.
Perhaps that's why Protestants have found a clearer path to salvation -- no middle man.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
What about all the other Christians that received the Holy Spirit without anyone laying hands on them?
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28 KJV)
Clement & Polycarp?
Of course they are. Are you sure that you’ve read them???
Comparing them to whose interpretation of the word of God?
-A8
LOL!!!!!! At least you have a sense of humor.
Yeah, wow...LOL...that one threw me for a loop.
Xzins, if you are right that the early Fathers were "in total agreement" with Protestants, then we should be able to proceed forward in time from the earliest Fathers and reasonably establish when their original Protestant-like doctrine was corrupted into half-paganized Catholicism. We "know" things started out good, but then ended up bad, so presumably we should be able to see when and how the change came about historically.
Does that sound about right? Do you think that can be done?
That is also what the Catholic Church teaches.
-A8
Then, by that formula, you must consider LDS as part of that One Church, and I know you don't.
-A8
LOL. Catholics act like the word of God is written in hieroglyphics or cryptograms or some foreign language.
But Good News! Since 1535 there's been an English Bible, and it's now available for all men to read and understand, by the will of God.
It's just not that difficult.
Unless you're looking to make it difficult and exclusionary by putting up barriers to the clear message of the Gospel -- "Be not afraid; only believe" (Mark 5:36).
Perhaps your Protestant background wishes that were so, but the evidence is to the contrary.
If Clement and Polycarp were "protestants" then SS John and Peter must have been "protestant" as well, since they taught Polycarp and Clement!
But given that St. peter and St. Paul did not see eye to eye for a while, and since Protestants seem to favor St. Paul (like Marcion did), I doubt St. Peter was very "protestant."
But, maybe you can tell us specifically which part makes Polycarp and Clemnent "protestant," and at which point in the 1500 year span between Pentecost and Luther did the Church "stop" being "protestant."
LOL!!!
I like it too. It's a nice verse.
Why don't you like it?
If interpreting Scripture is "just not that difficult" then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations, and the one you think has it right (i.e. the Orthodox Presbyterian Church) has only around 30,000 members worldwide, out of about 590 million Protestants worldwide (i.e. roughly .005% of Protestants are getting it right, in your view)?
-A8
Ordination is what imparts the "keys." You can receive the Spirit but you do not have the "keys." We are all part of God's priesthood, and some are part of the ordained priesthood, which must be Apostolic in succession. Protestants and Baptists and other sects and cults have no ordianed priesthood.
See CCC 1265.
-A8
There may be some LDS who fit into that cateogory, just as there are some Methodists and Presbyterians and Orthodox who would fit into that category; not by virtue of their membership in any organization run by men, but by virtue of Christ's having written their names in the Book of Life.
The LDS Church is not a true Church as they do not believe in the Christ revealed in Scripture. Nevertheless if God can make Sons of Abraham from stones, then he can make Children of God from Mormons.
When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
(Matthew 19:25-26 KJV)
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.