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.
Nope.
I am not calling God a liar. All I’m saying is that He carefully and meticulously (apparently not meticulous enough for some) set up His Church to bring the entire world to Him.
If He wishes (a la the thief on the cross) to bring others via an alternate pathway, then He is certainly within His powers to do so.
If you have to resort to silly straw man arguments, then you are out of ammunition.
No, this is not the Reformed view of the word "obedient". Free online dictionary says this about the word:
"Dutifully complying with the commands, orders, or instructions of one in authority." (emphasis added)
"Dutifully" requires a wish to be compliant. satan has no such wish. By his actions, satan may "serve" God, but he does not obey Him. There's a big difference.
The Christian approach to villains is that God created them good and they choose to be evil. But when you take the free will out of the equation, then God makes them evil.
The Christian approach to villains is that God created them and they were subject to original sin because of Adam, making them dead in their sins. Because of this, they then chose, inevitably, to do evil because that is their nature. In this case, God did not interfere to stop them. Free will never leaves the equation here because their sins are wholly by their free wills. God doesn't interfere. So what is your case for God making them evil?
The gun itself is not evil, but if the gunsmith uses it for evil purpose it becomes evil.
The gun remains an inanimate object, it is never evil or good in and of itself no matter how it's used. The gun CAN become an instrumentality of good or evil. God uses His elect as instrumentalities of good all the time. He also uses the lost to accomplish His wishes.
Are you suggesting God created Satan to use him for evil purpose?
Well, I don't think God created satan for His health! :) God is either omniscient or not, and has the absolute power to create or not. Of course God created satan knowing what he would do, and it fit into His plan perfectly, or God would not have bothered with the effort. God's plan governs, so if God didn't want satan to be the satan we know, He would have created differently.
No, they are saved because God chooses to save them. Period.
Sorry if it doesn't make any sense. God does not have to explain himself to you. He makes the rules. He chooses who is saved and who is damned. You don't. I don't either.
If I am saved it is only by the grace of God. I cannot give myself any credit.
I'm no better than the poor slob who ends up in hell.
Are you?
Is the LDS faith Scripturally-sound? Are the LDS correct to deny the Trinity?
Implicit within true Christianity is the revelation of the Godhead. By denying this Scriptural truth, the LDS show themselves as something other than orthodox, Bible-based Christians.
We are told to live lives that harmonize with the Gospel, and when we do, the fruits of our lives will be good and glorify God. To live and believe contrary to Scripture does not glorify God.
A Mormon or any non-believer's life may be filled with all sorts of toys and pleasures, but that's not the definition of "good fruit." Good fruit glorifies God and is faithful to His word.
To deny the reality of who God says He is in Scripture is not evidence of His grace; it is evidence of a lack of God's grace.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
lol. A lot like those really vital verses that demand a woman cover her head in church.
Yep. And all those icon verses....ooooops....ain’t no Icon verses. :>)
Gotcha.
You believe that you’re going to heaven because of innate knowledge. You know that you don’t deserve that trip to heaven. And that poor bastard next to you is going to hell. And he has exactly the same qualifications as you do. He’s going to hell and you’re going to heaven and you cannot tell him why you are selected and he is rejected.
I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how your gnostic beliefs differ appreciably from the current form of liberalism.
***Of course God created satan knowing what he would do, and it fit into His plan perfectly, or God would not have bothered with the effort. ***
Just like he created Judas.
I remembered this line of yours today when I was reading about Paul. Many, many times in Scripture Paul introduces himself with the following words...
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God...
Not "by the will of Paul," or even "with the cooperation of Paul."
"By the will of God."
Do you believe that St. Paul has any relevance when he says that? Or do you only believe those Paulian verses that, well, support your beliefs?
***You believe that you’re going to heaven because of innate knowledge.***
Notice how he takes whatever you say and changes it’s meaning completely? You never said hat.
What is an icon?
Could it be that an icon is a pictorial of what is going on in Christian worship because 97 percent of the population is illiterate and will be for centuries?
But neither the Bible nor Scripture teach "another way." The thief on the cross was saved exactly the same way you and I are saved -- by receiving faith in Jesus Christ.
Follow the bouncing ball. All of the predestinarians that I have conversed with claim that they know because they know.
It’s fascinating having conversation with the elite. Pray tell, how would you converse with those of us that you would deem the damned?
Does that mean that baptism is now out of the picture?
I have no problem with pictures of bible scenes.
I have trouble with the word “veneration.”
I never said that either.
I would tell you the gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s up to the Holy Spirit for you to believe.
And, just for your edification, I do not DEEM anyone damned. I do not know who Christ will save. My job is to tell/live/act the gospel.
Fat fingers, sticky keys, no proofing :>(
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.