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.
Why; underhanded, of course!
I did??
My Alzheimer's now is in a state where I may hide my own Easter Eggs!
It is beyond me.
I have tried to understand it and have failed. Except as a nihilistic and elitist philosophy, attractive to the fatalists and exclusivists, I cannot understand the attraction. The good Dr. E has tried, God bless her. It is beyond me.
I like to tell myself the same joke every day. I laugh and laugh. :>)
You’ve also forgotten to send on that seven figure check to me.
Just a reminder.
Thats because... You are not in control of the conversation..
Thanks for the invite.
This little town has two churches, one a nondenominational and the other a Catholic Mission.
I have attended the Catholic Mission about three times a month for several months now.
Lots of the members probably wonder why I do not take Communion or do a number of other things.
Yet, not one of the hundred or so members has taken the time to shake my hand or even get my personal address and telephone here in town.
When I drive into the larger community near us and attend the huge Baptist Church I never get out unless several people have extended their hands and asked me and the family to come back and visit.
I am glad to here your doing work in the evangelical area.
People who do outreach work no matter the church are truly blessed by God.
BTW...I attended the Catholic church while in South America because there was no other church in the town.
Foxes Book of Martyrs has many.. although not nearly an exhaustive list.. just a smattering..
Actually your question to me is why John Foxe wrote the book.. he says..
Foxe gives examples.. the mind boggles at the full extent of the hubris..
How do you explain the rationale as to who is chosen and who isn’t? Kinda arbitrary isn’t it? If I don’t have the gnosis if I am chosen as an elect, isn’t that licence to do as I will? Further, if I have the gnosis that I am chosen as an elect, isn’t that licence to do as I will?
In either case, what’s stopping me? If I am condemned to hell regardless of what I do, then I may as well get what I can now. If I am going to heaven regardless of what I do, then I may as well get what I can now.
In either case, I am absolutely absolved of any responsibility for any of my actions, since nothing I do matters. Is it not so?
You are looking at Calvinism as "exclusivist". But it is no more exclusivist than any other Christian philosophy.
The fact of the matter is that God decides who and under what circumstances men will be saved and who and under what circumstances men will be damned. It is hardly exclusivist to say that it is ENTIRELY up to God who is saved and who is damned.
We do know that those who are damned will have deserved their damnation, after all God, if he is anything, is Just. We also know that those who are saved do not deserve to be saved, but there are some who are saved despite deserving to be damned.
If you understand that principle and you know that God is just, then why would you struggle against that idea?
Who is a better judge of who should or should not be saved? You or God? And ask yourself, do you deserve to be saved? And does your unbelieving neighbor deserve to be saved. Or do you both really deserve to be damned? And if you are saved, is it because you saved yourself, or is it because God intervened in your life and brought you to a saving faith in Christ?
Is God obligated to bring everyone to a saving faith in Christ? Or is that HIS call?
Sadness and apologies for our actions / inactions.
You’d not get out of our 120 year old Church without a struggle. You’d be put into a full nelson and frogmarched over to the treats table after Mass and had coffee and juices poured into you until you had surrendered.
The ladies would have the complete history of your life, your family’s life, your ancestors’ life, your neighbours’ lives, your resume, your children’s grades, resumes and their love lives, what blood type you are, what hobbies you do, and how you’d fit into the parish life all in the first 3 minutes.
After that, if you’re male, you’d have a snack and coffee or juice and stand in the group, and wind up looking down the street to the Mississippi River occasionally saying ‘Yup.’
I say that it’s about the theology; my wife says that it’s about the fellowship. I’ve got a sneaky feeling that we’re both right.
He says Calvinists are “exclusive” when he damned me to hell for not following HIS church?
If you would, please forward me the names of individuals who were murdered by the Catholics for reading the Bible.
I am unaware of any and my reading of Foxe has not enlightened me. I agree with the extent of hubris. I suspect, though, that our examples of hubris may diverge.
He DARNED you to HECK.
You'll have to forgive him, his keyboard is all messed up.
Ah, you may be mistaken. There is no heck.
The Catholic Church has been given the pathway to heaven by none other than Jesus. There may be other pathways, but we have no authority, nor specific knowledge of it.
Believe in the Trinitarian God of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Be baptized in water and the Holy Spirit.
Confess your sins.
Act as God has instructed us in commission, omission and confession of sins.
No secret selection of the unknowing and secretive elect. No gnosis. No random lottery.
Just do as God has asked of us. To the extent that He has.
Besides, the Catholic Church has no power to damn anyone.
All we can do is look at the rules that God has set up and proceed from there. If I were Pope, could I damn P-Marlowe to hell if I knew that he was a serial killer that made Jeffrey Dahmer look like a choir boy?
Nope. That’s what the Judgement is for. It’s way beyond my pay grade, as somebody hereabouts has said recently. Even if I were Pope.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 KJV)
Are you suggesting Jesus was a liar?
Are you suggesting that maybe Jesus didn't say that?
The path to salvation is an exclusive path and it goes through Jesus. If you are on any other path, then you are on the road to hell.
Jesus was an exclusivist. He wasn't "A" way. He is THE way. Maybe that doesn't jive with our notions of fairness, but God makes the rules. To say that there may be another way to heaven other than through Jesus is to preach a false gospel and offer false hope to those who refuse to follow Christ thinking that God will somehow be "fair" to them if they are wrong.
He has promised damnation to those who do not believe (John 3:18). If you say God will somehow offer a secondary path, then you are calling God a liar. Either that or you do not believe.
But, but, but...
If you believe the Bible verses of inclusivity, then the philosophy rankles. If you believe the Bible verses that appear to indicate exclusivity, then as long as you’re in the club, boy howdy, in you go.
The whole deal of predeterminism appears to rest upon the idea that all people are undeserving, so therefore only some of the people will be saved. Pardon me for saying - what kinda crap is that? To say that some people are saved because they are undeserving of heaven and that the rest of humanity will go to hell because they are undeserving of heaven makes absolutely no sense.
Catholic or not, if you wanted to get attention and become part of the community you would go to coffee and donuts and introduce yourself.
If the Mass doesn't evangelize you then I don't know what would and you just assume that someone who attends Mass is a Catholic except for the ones you already know who aren't. I wouldn't notice if someone didn't go to Communion unless I had wriggle past them in the pew to go to communion myself and then I wouldn't really think about it, it isn't up to me to speculate.
When they sent the NG here we had a lot of them in Church. One week there was one sitting next to me. It was obvious that the girl he was with had brought him along. He was so lost and he made it obvious. I have to admit I was grinning a few times. At the sign of peace he grabbed my hand and said something like "Yo, dude." and then added "I don't think I'm doing this right."
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.