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.
Let me be clear that I don't necessarily mean the extreme "Trail of Blood"-type historians. Even Lutherans, Calvinists, even somewhat Catholic-minded Anglicans assert on some level that Rome corrupted the pure Gospel of the early centuries.
If there's a Protestant group that doesn't hold to that, I'd be happy to be corrected on that score, but I don't know of any.
“Do you know what a proper name is?”
Here is another answer. If you are being lead by the Holy Spirit, just add your name to the list. That will also satisfy the “proper name” test.
What about infanticide, genocide, Satanism? How deep does your relativism go?
-A8
I appreciate that. Some of your fellow Catholics on FR believe that all Protestants buy into the "Trail of Blood" stuff. I'm glad to hear you don't make the same sweeping generalities that they do.
Even Lutherans, Calvinists, even somewhat Catholic-minded Anglicans assert on some level that Rome corrupted the pure Gospel of the early centuries.
Now this I would modify, at least to say when and how rapidly Rome "modified" the gospel, and perhaps more importantly, to spell out if anyone could be saved/sanctified anyway (under the modified gospel). I'm not one who believes that no one could be justified/sanctified before the Reformation, but then again there are Catholics on FR who would accuse all Protestants of believing just this. So while I do believe that there was a "corruption" of doctrine in history prior to the Reformation, I do not believe that God's grace had been lifted from the Catholic Church, or that the Catholic Church wasn't part of the "true" Church in some way, prior to the Reformation (or beyond).
If there's a Protestant group that doesn't hold to that, I'd be happy to be corrected on that score, but I don't know of any.
Well, you can put me down as one. And I'd be willing to bet there are others out there, just like me.
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. - I Cor 6:1-4
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: - Luke 6:37
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. - Romans 2:1
First, you didn't answer my question: Do you know what a proper name is?
Second, your reply is equivalent to replying to the question: "What is the proper name of the current President of the United States?" by saying:
"The actions of the President of the United States will conform to the Constitution's directives regarding the actions of the President of the United States. That should satisfy the "proper name" test."
-A8
-A8
Forgive this intrusion into your exchanges. I would like to address this important question.
Satan comes as an Angel of light. Scripture relates that such deception will come upon mankind that if the times were not shortened the very elect would be drawn into the deceit. How can we know whom the elect are? Well, eventually the transforming work of the Holy Spirit within a 'faither' (one living a new life by faith plugged in to His faith, the Faith OF Jesus Christ as lived on Calvary confident of Resurrection morning) will bring forth fruit of His Spirit. The Just...ified shall live by Faith, have new life showing forth by Faith, not by works of seeming righteousness they can do, for such will Jesus say 'depart from me I never knew you.' And lest you forget, the scripture tells us those ordered to depart had just claimed to have done miracles in His name! To 'know me' is to live in me and show Himself out through me; Him transforming me, not me working hard to imitate.
Mormonism teaches that after all the Mormon adherent can do, then the Atonement of Christ, by Christ will be applied to the person; the Bible states clearly in numerous places that the just shall live by faith, that new life will come forth not by the works the person does to obtain but by the works the Spirit does within, living in the faither, transforming from within the person as they live life humble before the One Whom Purchased them for Himself (His Bride, if you will).
So, when Mormons claim the Holy Spirit is leading them to work for their salvation or work to keep their salvation promised to them, is that the message, the work, the power of the Holy Spirit? Since such an message contradicts what scripture clearly teaches, the answer is a resounding no. But their is a spirit leading them, leading them down the broad road, and too many will defend this journey down the broad road of error, pleading 'let's exhibit the spirit of peace and love, and coddle these Mormons on their journey.'
If you saw a man riding arduously a bicycle, blindfolded, heading directly toward a deep chasm before him, would you clear a path for him to that destruction, or would you try to divert his course?
I often point to Romans 11 on issues like this. An assembly of men may be Spirit filled and/or Spirit led and subsequently fall into grievous error. And they can be restored. The Jews are a good example of both. ("Boast not against the branches.") And as Paul warns in Romans 11, we Christians can do the same.
These verses in no way forbid or prohibit forming or expressing an opinion about the rightness or wrongs of others' actions, character or beliefs.
-A8
FWIW, I was born into Mormonism. It was something over which I had no control. But I can say with assurance that the Holy Spirit led me while I was a Mormon. He eventually led me away from Mormonism and I can say with assurance that he has brought me to where I am today.
A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. (Psalms 23:1-2 KJV)
If the Lord is your shepherd he will lead you beside the still waters. You'll get there as long as you let HIM lead.
Frankly, I don't know what all this fuss is about. No one is saying that Catholics are not being led by the Holy Spirit, but they seem to insist that everyone else is being led by the devil. If there is a schism in Christianity it is because the RCC insists that it, and it alone, is the arbiter of truth. IMO, those who make that contention leave no room for the working of the Holy Spirit.
Some of our Catholic friends seem to think that we protestants have no unity of fellowship, which, of course, is nonsense. When your focus is on Christ, then you have fellowship will all believers who are so focused. When your focus is on your particular sect or church, then you have no fellowship with those who are not so focused.
-A8
I am to judge the matter (the thing, the event, etc.) but not the person. Or as the Baptists would say, "hate the sin, love the sinner."
Perhaps you can afford the measurements you use on others to be used on yourself?
But I cannot afford it. And I will follow the Spirit's leading on this, not you.
i’d hazard a guess that all those separated from Rome beleive Rome changed something sometime ;p
P-M, you talk like all we need is "focus on Christ", but then you think JWs and Mormons are in error for not recognizing the deity of Christ and for falling (in some sense) into the error of Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. So your right hand seems to be unaware of what your left hand is doing. You pretend like its all just "Jesus", but if we scratch a little deeper, we find that you have theological criteria that must be met. Which is it: just "focus on Jesus", or does true faith require affirming some further theological propositions (i.e. the Nicene Creed)?
-A8
To God be the glory!
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.