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.
I've got it on my reading list. I'm finishing up Pastor Lutzer's "Why We Should Judge" and then I'm going to order that book. I like having the actual book, because I can highlight and scribble notes.
I appreciate the suggestion. I have come across so many good books because of my FRiends.
What a glorious reply. Thank you so much for bringing all those verses to bear on this discussion, encouraging me in this education. Indeed, my Glorious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is renewing my mind, transforming me. He feeds me with the Bread from Heaven. How delightful this Table He spreads before us, how grateful I for this communion with thee.
Isn't it a wonderful testimony that the inner desire overcame outward conditioning.
Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord.And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
One does not get born again by splashing babies with water .. or eating a wafer.. or acting like you believe some concept even.. Being born again is a miracle performed by the Holy Spirit after through preparation.. OF HIS.. of you for many years.. Some organization may pronounce words over you but that means nothing if the miracle did not happen..
All churchs have those.. even in the clergy.. In some cases especially in the clergy.. So who is born again?.. I'm not sure.., Maybe even some Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are.. even some JW's, and Mormons.. One thing is sure.. Being born again is not because of the building you meet in.. or of the rites and ceremonys you observe.. You know, like a Jew..
What a testimony to the Holy Spirit working in you!
I'm of exactly the same mind. Any rewards I may recieve I gladly give to our LORD. I am so thankful that a miserable wretch like me would be saved I really can't put it into words.
Exactly.. In an economy of giving what you have to give is your treasure "hidden in a vessel" (your spirit).. What you HAVE TO GIVE is the treasure.. In the new "heaven" and probably even in "HELL" what you have to give is all important.. However in hell if you have nothing you would be robbed of the immense JOY of giving/sharing.. and fellowship which is itself a "sharing"..
Yes.. the demeanor of the Holy Spirit, I have noticed is "mercy".. As all that know the Holy Spirit would probably say.. The Holy Spirit leaves tracks of mercy to follow if you do not know him well.. Well said my dear lady.. Our God is a consuming fire that leaves tracks of mercy..
My life is all trampled down with footprints of mercy.. Thank God.. Whether I metaphorically look up to God in the heavens or down at the tracks of the Holy Spirit on the earth(in my life).. God has been carrying ME... My heart is overflowing with gratitude this day.. You have much to GIVE..
Amen!
"Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul." -- Psalm 66:16
Can’t add a thing to your wonderful post.
Thanks for the honor and blessing of reading it.
LUB
That's Hallmark, not Scripture, Kosta.
Did God force Himself" on Paul?
At least four times in the New Testament Paul declares himself to be...
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (2 CORINTHIANS 1:1; EPHESIANS 1:1; COLOSSIANS 1:1; 2 TIMOTHY 1:1.)
Why would you want to claim for yourself what is rightly God's going?
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." -- Ephesians 3:20-21
"I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me." -- Psalm 57:2 "Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
You're missing the point of it all, I'm afraid. Christ fully accomplished what we could never do, even in small part -- He paid for every one of our sins in full for all time.
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:12;18"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God...
Indeed men expose themselves with the spirit of that verse..
They don't have to try, it just happens..
It takes a discerning spirit to notice though most of the time..
The Knowledge of good and evil is still in the realm of the Spirit.. the Holy Spirit..
Amen, keyword being "hopelessly." God prevails absolutely.
Sorry, I usually write “Trinitarian Christians.” By that fact, the LDS and JWs are not orthodox Christians.
Ask Mark. That was his point, not mine nor A-G's.
Kosta, what do you believe is the purpose of prayer?
The final judgment in time has yet to occur, but Scripture tells us that although the baliff has yet to read the verdict, it's already in.
We have been redeemed by His blood. We have been purchased with a price. All past tense, by the will of God from before the foundation of the world.
As Blue-duncan said, one day at a time of God's choosing the lives of each of God's children will catch up to their election by God from before time, and they will know "the power of God and the wisdom of God."
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of GOD." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18
And how do we know we are saved? Because we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and we believe that He rose from the cross to prove it all true.
As God wills.
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" -- Ephesians 1:4-7"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Read it, Kosta, and find the confident certainty God has given His children.
So, the Protestants consder themselves "perfect?" Real "sainst," right?
Graciously, we are seen as "perfect" because when God looks at us he sees the perfection of His Son in us which is given to us by the Holy Spirit.
Do you actually doubt so much of the Scriptures, Kosta?
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." -- Colossians 1:26-29"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Thus, our good works and good doctrine - for good cause - wrought by Him, through us (John 15) will count for a reward - and all else may be loss:
Amen. "...and by him all things consist" (Col. 1:17).
"by Him, through us" ""Yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will joy in the God of my salvation." -- Habakkuk 3:19
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.