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.
Yep.
God cannot be wrong.
I would think not.
Yet scripture tells us God thought otherwise: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth" [The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth- NIV]
The fact that man dies and does not go to heaven is righteous, because he (man) was full of sin, therefore unworthy of God.
Are you now saying God was wrong when the scripture says: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
God cannot be wrong.
We still agree. However if we base our conclusions about God and man on from an attempt to mesh together all of scripture, without seeing it as a unity, we end up with a view of God, who IS Good and Just and IS love, creating men who are not "very good"; and even with God the Father as not the God the Father to all his children. Some of whom He creates fatally flawed, incapable of use for anything but eternal garbage.
If we arrive at this point, we should consider that somewhere, we made a wrong turn and need to look at our source data perhaps in a different way.
thanks for your reply very much, as always, I appreciate your discussion.
***Are you now saying God was wrong when the scripture says: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.”***
God did create all things good, as in “according to his purpose” but he also put a little tree in the garden and told Adam not to eat of it. That’s where things went downhill :>) The tree was still good, just not good for Adam to eat. The action, the sin, was in disobeying God’s direct command to Adam. Even though Eve was the one decieved by the serpent, Adam’s sin was not obeying God.
Seeing that God didn’t HAVE to put that tree there, why do you think he did? I think that he did because all of this was according to his purpose. He knew that Adam would disobey, he knew that man would fall. It was all according to his purpose, his will. Before the creation of the earth, God had a plan that his Son would save the elect. Before any sin happened, he had a plan.
***Some of whom He creates fatally flawed, incapable of use for anything but eternal garbage.***
Actually, all of us are fatally flawed, until Jesus sets us free. All of us are dead in our sins, none of us are worthy of God, and none of us can be worthy of God without the Holy Spirit, given to us by Jesus.
***I don’t get the loving part; if you have 6 children and you condemn (say) 3 of them to burn in hell forever, it doesn’t give the appearance of loving. It gives the appearance of whimsical tyrant.***
You are not a child of God UNTIL he adopts you into his family. Until then, you are just a creation of his, to do with as he wills. When you become a child of God, NOTHING will separate you from him, not even your own actions.
I didn't follow what you wrote either. :)
Point is still the same if God the Father is not the Father of all.
That would be one theory.
He knew that Adam would disobey, he knew that man would fall.
That would be another.
It was all according to his purpose, his will.
That would be the first one again.
Before the creation of the earth, God had a plan that his Son would save the elect. Before any sin happened, he had a plan.
That would be a third theory, somewhere in between the first two.
I am not following. Do you not agree that there are some who will not be in heaven? That some are destined to die and never see glory? What kind of Father would that be, to allow his children to perish forever?
God saves all of HIS children, but some of his creation cannot claim to be his children. Only those whom God has placed in the arms of Jesus will make that claim. Therefore, God has chosen some for salvation and some for destruction. By the way, I have no problem with that at all. It is all up to the God who madeus, and his will will be done in ALL things. Even the destruction of the rest of mankind, like he did a few thousand years ago. He wasn’t wrong then nad he won’t be wrong this time, either.
You don’t believe that God had a plan?
By the way, not theory, but scripture.
No. Scripture is scripture. Speculating "Why God does.." is theory.
How do you mean this? A script, a set of drawings? A flow chart? How do you mean "God had a plan" precisely? Honest question.
That's up to God, beyond my pay grade and I'm real glad of that.
That some are destined to die and never see glory?
Same answer.
What kind of Father would that be, to allow his children to perish forever?
That would be a bad Father, wouldn't it?
Therefore, God has..
There you go again.. :)
I already answered these.
Therefore, God has..
There you go again..
I have no problem with that at all.
Of course not, if all you need is a neat, tidy, all wrapped up, holding together theory of God, it's great, puts all the puzzle pieces in scripture together pretty well.
Sorry to be repetitive. Are we going in circles or is it just me?
:)
***That’s up to God, beyond my pay grade and I’m real glad of that.***
If its all up to God (which I believe) then why are we having a disagreement? I have always said it is up to God.
Circles can be fun :>O
The problem we are having is that I post a question, and you try your hardest not to answer. So far, you’re doing pretty good :>)
No. You said it's all up to God because and why and some and why not and...
But you and I agree that it is all up to God, right?
I really am answering you in what I hope is the most effective way to communicate it.
Let me ask you a question:
Say you know someone, say your father. And you read a book written by someone else about your father. Further, as you read, you start to get the feeling that what you aren’t getting the same father from reading that you know.
The question is: What are all the possible reasons for this feeling of disconnection?
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.