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.
The Great Commission is a commandment FK, not something left up to Southern Baptists to fit to their own taste.
Baptists see the water baptism as being symbolic of the already accomplished Spirit baptism
The two must go hand in hand, FK. He said teach all nations (so that they may believe), and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
This word baptize comes from the Greek word baptiso which, in Greek, means numerous immersions (as opposed to the word bapto, which is a single immersion).
To say that water salvation is not necessary is really to make up your own religion of sorts. Clearly teaching and baptizing is given as one complete package.
St. Paul concentrated on preaching more than baptism. But, then again, he was much more concerned with having Gentiles come to faith first, which was urgently necessary given the fact the Church was dying in Israel. Once they believed, baptism could follow. In those days, teaching was a priority, even life.
Let's consider the source...of course.
[.. Miller’s History is new “Revisionism” and is skewed and inaccurate, as opposed to Church history that is verifiable by sources within the Catholic Church..]
Actually its recovery from RC revisionism.. All/many of those groups that the Roman Catholic church persecuted retained vestiges of the history of the acts presented against them to be remembered.. The Roman Catholic catbox of history still stinks..
Miller’s Church History.. http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm
Yes I do.
Now you want historical facts to get in the way...? :)
Not true thats why romance languages are true Patrois.. A mix of lingua franca(probably several dialects) and latin..
Then there’s no changing that number up or down.
If for example it were 922, then it wouldn’t be 921 or 923.
It is set.
Those 922 are the elect.
Purgatory and Holy Water are fictional..
The groups that are outside find a lot in common, just as the groups that are inside. That's natural.
Why not just take a look at the map.
Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, some of Iran, Turkey - most of Asia Minor, the entire north and much of the west coast of Africa, up the Nile to Ethiopia, and Spain and Portugal were all conquered by the Moslems.
In 1526, Suleiman conquered southern Hungary, from his bases in Bulgaria, and three years later sailed up the Danube, conquering as he went. He laid siege to Vienna and was beaten off by winter and a coalition of forces. As they left, they maximized damage to the city and to the countryside.
In 1683, Vienna was again besieged and it took the combined might of all the West to finally push the Moslmes out of Central Europe. You friendly neighbourhood Turks.
The NT is clear who will do the judging. Your question is a straw man.
Interesting.
My NAB John 5: says that
24
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life.
This, and several other passages are taken by the Church to mean that belief in Him is a requirement; however we do not read this as avoidance of Judgement, rather, however we are Judged, we shall gain eternal life as long as we do this, as well as several other things such as Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
We don’t look at this as a single one-off requirement, rather, as one of several that must all be fulfulled.
Any history that comes from the Roman Catholic church is already suspect.. Roman catholic clergy have a tendency to make things up.. Transubstantiation, assumption of Mary, indulgences.. like that.. The RCC has things fully as strange as Scientology.. I wouldn't say MORE strange but as strange..
Oh, I do.
But you are the willing tool of God that has passed it on. I am grateful that you did so.
Exactly, and depending on what we choose, and with what i>intent of our choice, is what He gives in return.
"I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life" [Isa 38:5]
So why does the Church think it has the authority to declare who the saints are?
St. John Chrysostom (5th century)
Would you be referring to Rev 7:
1
1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, 2 holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on land or sea or against any tree.
2
Then I saw another angel come up from the East, 3 holding the seal of the living God. He cried out in a loud voice to the four angels who were given power to damage the land and the sea,
3
“Do not damage the land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.”
4
I heard the number of those who had been marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand marked 4 from every tribe of the Israelites:
5
twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Judah, 5 twelve thousand from the tribe of Reuben, twelve thousand from the tribe of Gad,
6
twelve thousand from the tribe of Asher, twelve thousand from the tribe of Naphtali, twelve thousand from the tribe of Manasseh,
7
twelve thousand from the tribe of Simeon, twelve thousand from the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand from the tribe of Issachar,
8
twelve thousand from the tribe of Zebulun, twelve thousand from the tribe of Joseph, and twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Benjamin.
9
After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches 6 in their hands.
10
They cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation comes from 7 our God, who is seated on the throne, and from the Lamb.”
11
All the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God,
12
and exclaimed: “Amen. Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen.”
I think that it does not make a distinction between the 144,000 Jews and the multitudes without number inasmuch as they have had the seal applied. I think that the key here is - great multitude that no one could count from every nation, race, people and tongue. The vast majority of people upon the Earth.
Is this where you wished me to go?
It's not a judgment as to their innocence or guilt. Saints are extraordinary Christians, our role models and "spiritual heroes," whose life and faith are an inspiration for others.
I know you do. Therefore being born again doesn't seem to mean much to 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.