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, FK!
It's no coincidence one of history's two greatest reformers was a lawyer. Like you, John Calvin found in Scripture a coherence and logic that was internally sound because it was all predicated on the sovereignty of God to whom be all the glory.
Within the Scriptures (which the RCC worked to withhold from the people) Calvin rediscovered exactly what Augustine said was there -- the predestining will and wisdom of the Trinitarian God. Anyone who actually reads the Scriptures will find the same things, if God gives them new eyes and ears to see and hear the truth of who He says He is.
Who can read Ephesians 1 & 2 and Romans 8 & 9 and not see God's control of His creation on every page?
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:10-14"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
Some of the Christians persecuted by the RCC were:
The Paulicians
The Albigenses
The Paterines
The Petrobrussians
The Henricians
The Arnoldists
The Hussites
The Waldenses
The Annabaptists
Amen. Don't forget the Huguenots...
It is simply a fact of history, as you rightly note, that the RCC used force and terror to compel belief, while the Reformation relied on the "Scriptures and the power of God."
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" -- Ephesians 6:14-17"Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
It puts things in context with the geopolitics of the age and place in which they occurred.
We’re going to have to have a “Sides” thread.
I’ve lost track of who’s on whose side.
And the arguments in which who is with whom.
“Which side are you on?” .... whaddayathink :>)
The researcher, Rummel, lays the witch burnings at the feet of the Protestants and compares them to the murder of heretics by the Catholics.
He says the Salem witch trials were much smaller than in Germany - and puts both in context with greater horrors such as the Mongols, infanticide, etc.
I know.... this happened in several places.. didn’t last long but the attitude that caused this edict is the problem.. Still a pretty much general belief probably.. Especially if your faith in the “church” and not the bible.. The church being people, appointed officials..
“burnings at the feet of protestants...”
Totaling about 7 Witches
and a few other assorted relative pronouns.
But who’s counting?
:>)
Rummels site is interesting.. Democide is quite a word..
Those who believe that Christ is the head of His church on earth, and those who think that office is held by "another Christ."
Those who think God wants us to fall down to the stock of a tree, and those who know the lie of that belief.
Those who think men are partly, occasionally, somewhat responsible for their salvation, and those who know that it is all of God, and always has been by the pefectly-accomplished work of Christ on the cross.
"Choose ye this day." And so we do, by the will of God and the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
There are few reliable sources for democide statistics prior to the 20th century.
The Europeans were much bloodier than the Americans. Indian massacres, according to Rummel are way overstated. Most of them died off from diseases brought to the continent by the Europeans.
At one point, the author does write -- "In some cases I have dared to make my own estimates..."
Hmmm... 8~)
Wikipedia, being notoriously ultra liberal uses the highest numbers from Rummel's research without characterization. For instance, they go with the biggest estimate on witch hunts which he does not endorse - and do not separate the deaths of American Indians between massacres v disease but lump them altogether as if the deaths were intentional, etc.
I do question his footnote #15 here --
"After decades of scholarly research in the German archives, study of reports and official documents of other involved countries, and interviews with participants and survivors, the best estimates of the Holocaust dead still vary by over 40 percent."
I'm always leary of people down-grading the Holocaust. I haven't read yet if this is actually what he's doing, or if that footnote is out of context.
Overall, however, Rummel's taking on such an enormous task and doing so much documented work is really impressive. And the numbers are humbling, aren't they? It's a wonder any of us are alive at all after so much intentional blood-letting. All men are indeed fallen.
The Nazi Germany "low" is 15 million and "high" is 32 million - the 21 million is the "medium."
Maranatha, Jesus!
That sounds about right. And I'm glad he included the 800,000 slaughtered Tutsis over a mere few days. Genocide/democide is ever present.
Maranatha, Jesus!
Amen!
If we cannot make choices, we are robot slaves. There’s really no other conclusion. Either we are free to accept God or we are not. If we are not free, then we are controlled. If we are controlled, then we cannot sin, since sin results from wrong choices, not from following a computer program.
The omnipotent being’s manifestation on Earth (Jesus) has urged us throughout the New Testament (following the instructions in the Old) to act in various ways and to do. He further says that if we act and do as He instructs, then we will receive everlasting life with Him. Unless He is lying (an admission I do not make), then He is telling the truth.
Why does the apparent loss of moment to moment control bother you? After all He is the Omnipotent God Who has created all and sent His creation into motion. I think that a great gift He has given us is hope. Without hope, we are as the insects and plants are; simply occupying our days in a preprogrammed fashion until we die.
Fascinating account.
Thank you.
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.
