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.
You "gnosis" that for sure? You got rules?
What do you know for sure, you old Gnostic you?
If I were a Gnostic I'd tell'ya...
I guess it all goes to the creation of the souls. Judaism shares pagan belief in the pre-existence of the souls.
The Orthodox, as far as I know, teach traducianism. The doctrine teaches that God created a soul of Adam and that through his soul all humans inherited the same life. Thus, when he fell, all the generations inherited a defective soul, corrupted by sin.
Correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that the Catholic teach creationism of the soul, although the early Latin Church Fathers, especially St. Augustine, were leaning towards the former. The doctrine of creationism of the souls teaches that God creates a souls for each newly conceived human being.
Early Gnostics embraced the Judaic belief that all the souls were created before the foundation of the world.
Early Reformers, to the best of my knowledge, still maintained creationism doctrine of the souls, but some of the 21st century followers of Reformation, and most sects and cults that appear on these threads seem to embrace the Judeo-pagan belief of pre0-existing souls.
The early Church condemned Origen's and the Gnostic belief in the pre-existence of the souls because of its association with re-incarnation, which the Church rejects.
How do we end up with a defective soul? Obviously, the doctrine of the pre-existenceI of the souls and the doctrine of creationism implicitly suggest that God deliberately created or creates defective souls. Traduconism simply explains it by saying we are getting " by his transgression.
The Catholics, of course, do not believe that God creates defective souls with each conception, but do not offer an xcplanation at which moment does the soul of a new human being become defective.
The Protestants who believe in the pre-existence of the souls simply say that God ordained some to hell and some to heaven, then created all the souls, and predestined each human being with an "appropriate" ready-made soul, which is pulled off the heavenly storage shelf and "plugged" in at the moment of conception, or perhaps even at some other moment.
From their mindset, it is perfectly just and proper for God to do that (neglecting to acknowledge that it is not characteristic of the revealed God in our lord Jesus Christ).
Moreover, the Reformed (Calvinists) cannot assume that a baby is innocent because the soul of the baby is already dead in sin.
That's very true.
... after all that what this does for me is challenge me to put all my faith, to place all my bets, to stake everything on Jesus.
Amen, wise words for us all.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. :) I think all Christians should take doses of getting back to basics very often. Every organized faith carries dangers of getting away from them.
FK: "The answer is unquestionably "YES"." ......
I think I need to correct this. [If a man does certain things the Spirit may become "dormant" such that the person is spiritually dead.] ...... Whether the Spirit actually vacates permanently the person, that's different. IF the Spirit actually left forever, then that person could NEVER repent!!! I don't see God giving up on us and returning to the fold (remember the shepherd parables?). The fact that a sinner CAN repent is proof that the Holy Spirit does not "vacate" entirely those whom He wills.
Thanks for your reply. Since we are talking about the indwelling Holy Spirit, as opposed to His influence alone, I don't understand your point about not being able to repent. Sinners originally repented before the Spirit indwelt, so (if the Spirit left) why couldn't they just do it again, theoretically? So, my understanding of the Catholic view was that the Spirit vacated, in most cases temporarily, until the person repented and then the Spirit would come back.
Yes.. violating the rules/rule is the point..
When I alleged contradictions, one example I was specifically thinking of was papal authority. I thought that was clearly a case of dogmatic binding by the Church.
That looks like a pretty good summary, thanks.
You’re correct, as far as I know, about the RC view, although I read that there are some modern exceptions, and as you noted, there was some back and forth way back.
I do definitely prefer some of the resulting conclusions from Traducianism and I think that in general, the Eastern Orthodox way of handling original sin seems healthier, at least compared to how some in the West use it in early catechism. Whether this is a necessary result of the theology or a failure of humans, I’m not sure. I also wasn’t raised in the East, so it could be that humans there could also misuse teaching of inherited sin while still be correct to the letter.
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance” and I don’t know the Eastern response to this objection. I would accept “it’s a lesser problem than you have otherwise.”
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents. Which would seem, to me anyway, to mitigate the objection to Traducianism, but I’m not sure how it removes it.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly. From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on.
thanks for your post..
From their mindset, it is perfectly just and proper for God to do that (neglecting to acknowledge that it is not characteristic of the revealed God in our lord Jesus Christ).
Moreover, the Reformed (Calvinists) cannot assume that a baby is innocent because the soul of the baby is already dead in sin.
Does anyone have any evidence for these strange comments that appear to be condemning innocent newborns to hell sight unseen?
I tend to avoid the Religion Forum, so I am not up on the latest interpretations here. But, I have to say condemning newborns to hell before they have a chance to do good or ill seems like pure bilge to me.
In that case, your testimony is that there are mistakes and abuse in Heaven because everything is bound there too. I would say that pretty much invalidates it. :)
But you cleverly avoid answering my question, because there is very little, save for a direct and personal objection to the verse, which obviously offends you. You offer no explanation, only your blanket opposition.
I don't remember a specific question to me, but if I missed it then I'm sorry. Are you asking for a scriptural explanation? If so, my objection is on the basis that the Bible does not support it. I'm not asserting the power so I don't have to prove it, your side does. If the Apostolic interpretation is correct, then God's sovereignty is damaged because man can trump God, as the above dilemma illustrates. The binding and loosening we are talking about (can) concern very serious spiritual matters. If Heaven became bound by man's mistakes, then where are we? Chaos. That is unbiblical.
What could "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" possibly mean if not what it says, FK?
Christ specifically gave Peter, and by extension the other Apostles, the power to bind and loose. That is, that they were given the authority to continue preaching Christ's Gospel, and to rule on Church discipline. They were not given the ability to supplant God's word, but only to declare it with the authority of Christ. They never had the power to declare against God's word. And, I am unaware of any of the Apostles ever abusing this authority.
If, however, through Apostolic succession there has been subsequent abuse, and I agree with you that there has, then something is very wrong here. For those abuses, Heaven is indeed not bound, yet the abuses still have the force of "law" to the laity, and scripture appears to be violated. I would say that's a bad thing. :)
The Reformed have no problem with God making humans destined for hell, but somehow find it "offensive" and "unjust" that God may have elected some people for a specific task?
No, we have no problem with that, my problem is with who is really in control. I see the interpretation of binding and loosening being that whatever the Church says goes, and God just agrees to it no matter what. That is impossible in my mind, since "the Church" says different things.
FK: "It is a blank check to the few men in power in the Church. For the Latins, it is a blank check to one man alone."
What happened to you, FK? You have changed. How can you make such a statement knowing how patently incorrect it is? The Bible tells us that this is not so, and the promise (the "keys") are given to all the Apostles, and their successors, not only to Peter and his.
No, I'm the same old me. :) By "one man" I was referring to the "blank check" given to the Pope to declare infallibly on behalf of God ex cathedra. I know that binding, etc. applied to all the Apostles.
We all receive blessings; what we do with them is a different story. Surely, we all agree that blessings may have been abused. That doesn't invalidate the blessings. Breaking the law does not invalidate the law; it condemns the lawbreaker.
I agree, but in the context of this conversation, this would leave the Church open to condemnation for abuses. Is that possible? I thought not because of the claim of infallibility. But if it is possible, then how can any member of the laity know which parts to agree with and which not to?
With all due respect, FK, you seem to have forgotten everything you once apparently knew about the Church. The binding and loosening has to do with mysteries (sacraments) and not ecclesial matters.
Actually, I have never heard this before. Is there any scripture to support that limitation? I inferred from one of your earlier comments (which I could never find) that it applied to just about anything. Then it came out that it does not apply to sending people to hell, etc., so I was asking where the line is drawn, and how do we know that.
Also, your take does not appear to match the scripture that BD found: [BD: "The practical application is: binding; 1 Cor. 5:1-7, loosing; 2 Cor. 2:1-10."]
It has always been one and has never ceased being one and only Church Christ established, because it is established on sacramental authority given in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
I do not see any limitation to the sacraments. Those verses really "look" pretty open-ended.
You believe what you want believe.. some religionists are that way too.. You must be ignorant on the death of those not at the age of consent.. i.e child vs. adult..
I plead ignorance to the particulars of what each of the many thousands of individual religions believe.
But I think the idea of condemning newborns to hell, which is what a previous post seemed to be advocating, is one of the most repugnant, and ridiculous, ideas I have ever heard.
Interesting observation. In the East, the ancestral (original) sin is looked at as a disease passed on from generation to generation. The soul is sick, and in need of a spiritual physician. Adam's transgression tipped the scale of his neither-mortal-nor-immortal-nature to mortality, and from there on all those who share in his nature are also mortal.
To become healed we need to be spiritually united with God by imitating Him and submitting to His will, thereby regaining His likeness which was lost in the Fall. So, by becoming Christ-like we are in various stages of healing. This, of course, requires obedience and cooperation with the Physician.
It's comparable to a drug-addicted child born by a drug-addicted mother. It will continue in perpetuum if untreated. Naturally, the child bears no guilt or responsability for his affliction, but he cannot—on his own—shake himself free from it. So, the eastern mindest is free of guilt, self-debasng, self-condmening concept of the original sin.
In this mindset, the concept of Immaculate Conception is meaningless to the Orthodox. Combine that with traducianism and one can see no theological basis for such an intervention. In fact, IC in this framework produces a human being unlike the rest of us.
This could be, as some of our friends here like to say, an observer problem, because it is just a slikely that, from the strictly Augustinian frame of mind, the IC must perfect sense and even a necessity!
The objection to Traducianism, or so I read, is in “organic process of giving rise to a spiritual substance”
I am not sure what that means.
The West avoids the objection of God creating the soul in a fallen state, by attributing the creation of the soul to God and the fallen part from the parents
The "fallen part" of what? The soul? I didn't think souls came in parts. It is not our body that is fallen, but our soul. The soul quickens the body; the body follows. The body is a car; the soul is the driver. If the driver is drunk...you get the drift. Adam first experienced spiritual death, which was eventually followed by physicial death.
However, with this mitigation, East and West end up at pretty much the same point pretty quickly
That is true and the different views in this sphere were not any cause of division as fra as I know.
From there the theology can manage to avoid cascading errors about God all the way up to predeterminism, utterly depraved and so on
Most certainly.
The "evidence" is, of course, the Bible, or better yet their interpretation of it, since not all who use the Bible arrive at the same conclusion. They would answer you that none of us is innocent (even at birth), but "filthy rags" (one of their favorite quotes).
I tend to avoid the Religion Forum, so I am not up on the latest interpretations here. But, I have to say condemning newborns to hell before they have a chance to do good or ill seems like pure bilge to me
They will tell you that no one can do any good until he is "born again" and has an "indwelling spirit." You can take it from there...
Jesus called Simon "a ROCK" not peter(Cephas)(a first name) like "Rockie".. A ROCK for the building of a metaphorical building(church)..
All members can bind and loose in their own lives.. For wherever two or three meet in my name(there am I) is the church.. If you, do or not do, something you are responsible.. Only the blood sacrifice of Jesus can adjust that deed(s).. What deeds you DO is bound to YOU in BOTH realms.. And what blessings you GET are LOOSED to YOU in BOTH realms.. What you bind or loose yourself effects your life instantly whether by word or deed...
Example: whatever "we" post on this thread binds or looses activity and responsibility on earth and in heaven.. NOW.... Scary stuff without the Holy Spirit to guide you.. and Jesus blood to "cover you"...
Me too... but there some even here(FR) that do not see murdering people(babies) as a foul deed.. maybe unfortunate but not foul..
Looks like those concepts went over your head "also"... ZOOOM..
However the reformed "Arminian" school (saved by works) gets close to that.. but even they don't advocate that.. as you present it..
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.