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.
AMEN!
That is such an apt analogy. We are creatures of story-telling; we respond to a beginning, a middle and an end.
It was God's choice to reveal Himself to us through Scripture, through the word of God, through the print on the page, through the narrative. Even as children we listen and learn and plug into the flow of the story.
So in life we have God explaining everything to us by means of His one, perfect, explicit, intentional story laid out in the Old and New Testaments; the story, as you said, of "His family established in the new heaven and new earth."
All the while, God knows every word, sentence, paragraph and frame of existence because He wrote every one of them by and through and for "Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2.) .
No.. I am providing what you ask for.. data about murder(and WORSE) by roman catholic clergy.. That IS what you seek is it not?.. or do you seek to discredit John Foxe by gambit?.. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.. John Foxe approached persecution generally also by the the roman clergy.. Madame Guyon is specific.. Her NOT being a non roman catholic but being a persecuted roman catholic herself.. Some would say thats even a WORSE more heinous crime.. Which it is.. Speaks of the blood lust and wide spread anti-christ spirit of the Roman catholic church of her time not only by clergy...
If you are out to discredit John Foxe then read him and give him a chance to get all nasty with lies himself.. OR NOT..
That is twisting the truth, P-Marlowe. God made our salvation possible, but He doesn't force us to be saved. He offers it to all impartially. Those who are lost shall perish because they refused His salvation. The world is saved because God extends His hand to all; some, maybe even most, are lost because they refuse it.
As far as I am concerned, those who want to be forced, who relish being compelled, have deeper issues to deal with.
That means all soccer moms need to be covered.
A woman’s hair is her covering.
If God only made our salvation "possible," then Christ didn't really save anyone on the cross; He just facilitated every man's good choice to believe.
That's a very impersonal, universalitist understanding of Christ's sacrifice.
“That means all soccer moms need to be covered.”
Context kosta, context. Now where is the subject of covering found that we are discussing and what is the context? Why it is in the church at Corinth, not the soccer field.
Amen to your Excellent Post!
Ah, ah, ah.
You originally made the charge that the Roman Catholic Church murdered people for reading the Bible. I asked you to prove it. You directed me to Foxe. I didn’t find anything about the murder of Bible readers there and asked if you could help pinpoint a chapter, page and name.
You then directed me to Madame Guyon. I then wondered if there was anything there that would name murdered Bible readers. I am not looking, in this instance, anyway :) to discredit anyone. I was merely trying to substantiate your charge.
I also don’t understand what you mean by discrediting by gambit. A chess player knows that a gambit is a sacrifice of a piece in order to gain better position on the chessboard. What are you accusing me of sacrificing? I don’t understand your statements.
Actually, that’s an interesting question.
Jesus said that blaspheming against the Holy Spirit gets the equivalent of a taxi ride to Hell. If the absence of God relegates one to Hell, then I suppose that the Holy Spirit can leave an individual, if that individual were baptized in water and the Holy Spirit before the blasphemy.
NAB Acts 10:
34
Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.
35
Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.
I think that a look at some early manuscripts might be in order. We take this as very strong evidence that it is our actions towards God and each other that shows God’s acceptance of us, and with it His everlasting Salvation.
Hmmm.
What if a man had long hair? What if a woman went bald? What if somebody adopted a long Mohawk?
Questions, questions..
It says long hair, not just woman's hair.
Top the contrary! What He accomplished on the cross was to give every human being a chance to be saved.
Principle, BD, principle! If long hair is covering, then short hair is not—regardless if it is a soccer field or the church in Corinth.
Long, stylish hair in men and styled beards were considered vanity. The beards are uncut (just like the Orthodox Jews have them), and hair is kept short and modest in Christian circles. The beard rule goes back to Leviticus. That's why most Orthodox priests do not trim their beards (although in America especially they wear styled beards).
A woman who lost her hair would wear a covering. This is a perfect example that protestants believe only select verses, and deny those that run contrary tot heir theology. No Protestant woman will cover her hair. They will tell you that Paul's specific words "long hair" is irrelevant! or will just pretend that ti isn't there.
Catholic women stopped coveirng their heads after Vatican II. Orthodox women are 50-50, and in America probably 1:99 covered to uncovered. It's pride, nothing short of it. In Russia and Russian churches abroad, it's the reverse 99:1.
In most European-based orthodox churches, women stand on the left and men on the right (just as in a synagogue). It deterrs any distractions, believe me, especially in certain periods when full prostration is common before Christ (Great or Holy Lent, and Great or Holy Week)—knees on the floor, arms down, face to the ground.
Don't you have to get a health department waiver to do that?
It is as you say.
I wonder how I’d fit in: I currently wear a moustache (trimmed) and goatee trimmed to about 6 mm. Fairly vain. :)
Full prostration? I’ve been told here rather severely that outward signs don’t matter and it’s only a chunk of wood anyway.
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.
