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.
“1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace”
That has to do with what goes on in the meetings. In the same chapter Paul says that if any have a teaching let them do it in an orderly fashion so that all may be taught. That implies that there will be individual teachings from the persons attending the meeting, not just the professionals.
No problem.
You want AG to figure out what body of Christians is most accurately teaching/following the Scriptures (in a nutshell), correct?
I'm not asking her to "figure it out". I'm just asking if she *knows* it, or if she *believes* that denomination x comes closest to getting it right. If she doesn't know which denomination comes closest to getting it right, or doesn't have any belief about which denomination comes closest to getting it right, then she can just say, "I don't know."
Then all this disagreement between different religions is nonsense? No one should have a problem with Catholics that honor Mary if that is what the Holy Spirit tells us to do?
That is indeed an implication of relativism.
-A8
i don’t see where Paul limits the statement that God is not the author of confusion to meetings, I also don’t know of any scripture which aledges Christianity is necessarily chaotic or messy.
YOU: Because you are using the same gnostic methodology to justify your theological position. If we remain unaware of the *fundamental* causes of the errors of the heretics, then we will not be able to see whether we are heretics as well.
No, a heretic is following a false god. Just because we both walk on two feet does not mean we are going in the same direction.
And no one here is "unaware" of heretical errors. On the contrary, we have God's word specifically showing us right and wrong. And from my reading of the Bible I find the RCC littered with errors which are clearly denounced in Scripture.
In black and white, no less.
If there were no Bible, you would have a smidgeon of a point. Who are Protestants following then? Whose voice are they heeding?
But God did give us His word and show us His will in Scripture. And in that Scripture we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide our understanding of it and in doing so, we will recognize the truth of Christ risen.
And A8, happily I'm here to tell you that this is exactly what has happened in my life and in the lives of those who preach the word to you on this forum. The fruits of our lives are good and plentiful, just as God promised in Scripture.
I don't need more "proof" than that. Sadly, some in the RCC crave more assurance from the wrong sources, from Mary and dead people and trinkets and beads and icons and "other Christs" and various magical incantations which lean towards alchemy.
Thank you, no. Scripture clearly denounces those practices. God says to His sheep -- follow your conscience because it is a gift from me to you. And so it is.
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost" -- Romans 9:1
So we have Paul telling us our consciences, our minds and our thoughts and our intentions, are by the work of the Holy Spirit if we are His...
"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." -- Titus 1:15
And if we are His and the fruits of the Holy Spirit are in our lives, we need fear no man or reproach...
"for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" -- 1 Corinthians 10:29
And how do we know our consciences are pure? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." -- Hebrews 9:14-15"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
So God washes our fallen consciences with the blood of Christ which equips us to worship Him in truth, according to the word of God. And how do we do this? We trust Him.
"Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly." -- Hebrews 13:18
The RCC fears a man's conscience, instead coralling it with heavy gold chains and fences made with the stumblingblocks of idols.
As I have said, we deny not that laws enacted with a view to external policy ought to be carefully obeyed, but in regard to the regulation of the conscience, we hold that there is no legislator but God. To him alone, then, be reserved this authority, which he claims for himself in many passages of scripture. In this matter, however, were subverted, first, the honor of God, from which it is impious to derogate in any degree; and, secondly, genuine liberty of conscience - a liberty which, as Paul strenuously insists, must not be subjected to the will of men. As it was, therefore, our duty to deliver the consciences of the faithful from the undue bondage in which they were held, so we have taught that they are free and unfettered by human laws, and that this freedom, which was purchased by the blood of Christ, cannot be infringed. If anyone thinks we are blameable in this, he must attribute the same blame to Christ and his apostles..." "...And again, "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and no longer dread his presence. And he [Paul] intimates that everyone feels in his own experience, that our consciences cannot but be in perpetual disquietude and fluctuation, so long as we look for protection from works, and that we enjoy serene and placid tranquillity then only, when we have recourse to Christ as the only haven of true confidence. We add nothing to Paul's doctrine; but that restless dubiety of conscience, which he regards as absurd, is placed by our opponents among the primary axioms of their faith...
So when Mormons claim that the Holy Spirit is actually, truly leading them into Mormonism, are they mistaken?
-A8
ping to 504.
Wrong. The focus is on Christ.
“Which particular human beings [identified with proper names] and which denomination [identified with its proper name] most accurately conforms in its doctrine to the whole of the Apostle’s doctrine/teaching?”
The answer to that question/questions is found in Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God....” their doctrine will conform to the scriptures as revealed by the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit.
IMHO, a lot of the doctrines and traditions of men stem from men trying to explain what God really meant instead of simply believing Him.
For instance, do not kill but kill these, that God does not change and yet the earnest prayers of a righteous man availeth much and He allows Abraham to plead for Sodom and Gomorrah, that God is One and yet Jesus Christ is God, His Name is I AM and also Alpha and Omega - and so on.
You just proved my point. Heretics of all time have claimed exactly the same thing, as St. Vinent of Lerins pointed out [here] in the fifth century.
You think you are special. You have the Scriptures, and therefore, you think that unlike all those other heretics of the past 2,000 years, you won't get it wrong. Of course, that's exactly what they all thought.
But God did give us His word and show us His will in Scripture. And in that Scripture we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide our understanding of it
How's that working out for you all? How many thousands of denominations are you up to now? I already pointed out to you in #237 that in your own view, the success rate for interpreting Scripture correctly is less than .005%. So, what kind of job is the Holy Spirit doing? You are essentially accusing the Holy Spirit of doing an extremely lousy job.
The fruits of our lives are good and plentiful, just as God promised in Scripture
Did God promise division upon divison to be a fruit of the Holy Spirit? Or is peace (i.e. reconciliation and unity) a fruit of the Spirit?
Why do you quote Calvin, as if Scripture is insufficient? What authority does Calvin have?
-A8
Likewise for Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, et al. Refer back to post 403 for how I recognize a brother or sister in Christ.
-A8
Okay, so because I said “we believe”, to me just a matter of how I speak, does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not leading me.
I know I’m being led correctly. I’m Catholic. I truly, intimately know Him.
I’m not “Gritting one’s teeth, covering his ears, stomping the ground and muttering “Jesus Christ is Lord”.
Now what? How do you and I reconcile our differences or do they even matter? And if they don’t matter, why are all the non-Catholics trying to show us how wrong we are?
Those are not contradictory statements. Those are mere seeming contradictory statements. Therefore, you don't have to sacrifice the whole of theology in order to acknowledge those seeming contradictions. Mere seeming contradictions are fully compatible with logic.
-A8
It is a 'yes' or 'no' question.
-A8
betty boop is my dearest sister in Christ and she is Catholic - as is half of my family.
I do have concerns about Catholic teaching - mostly the doctrines and traditions of men which have accrued over two millenia. But the Jews are way ahead of you, they've been accruing doctrines and traditions of men for nearly four millenia. LOL!
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.