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.
Prior to the Pentecost the Holy Spirit made His work on an extraordinary basis, and at Pentecost the promise of Christ to send the Paraclete to His Church was fulfilled, and the extraordinary presence became ordinary indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
OK, there is a case for that. I suppose I would respectfully disagree because all salvation is based on regeneration, then and now. Regeneration is only possible by the indwelling of the Spirit because our spirits can only become alive by this indwelling. We hold that the salvation model is the same for OT saints and the rest of us, i.e. grace through faith:
Rom 8:9-11 : 9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
My opinions are actually not all over the map. They may seem so to those who are not familiar with Orthodoxy. On occasion I will reference it to official doctrine, but I am not here to do everyone's homework. My job is not to evangelize Christians.
Also, some of my opinions are not supported by the Church. I express them as my opinions. If they are not what the Church teaches, I presume error on my part. I still want to know why.
I have a copy of the RCC catechism and some of the doctrines are not biblically referenced.
That's because you are not using the Bible the Church used form the beginning. Most of the praxis of the Church is carryover form Judaism. Next thing you will tell me that's not biblical either.
You mean you don't sing new choruses and jingles?
No we don't. We love it the way it was established. It's timelessness, not trendiness. Would you want to change your parents every 10 years or so?
***Would you want to change your parents every 10 years or so?***
Only if they’ve messed their diapers. (sorry, couldn’t help it :>)
You think so? I think prevaricating is when some Joe, who calls himself a "Christian," finds someone with similar convictions and calls it a "church" while dismissing the entire Corpus of Christianity as guilty corruption, false religion and of hijacking the Holy Spirit.
Let me get this straight: God give people the "elect" a desire to please Him. And then the go around saying "I want to please the Lord, I want to please the Lord, I want to please the Lord...," ad infinitum, "choosing" to please Him "freely?"
Houston, we have a problem...bleep.
I don't know what is worse, the assertion that God treats a segment of humans He created as pampered and spoiled kids who can do no wrong, or that He programmed them to please Him.
There was no salvation prior to Christ. Everyone was subject to death.
Mark to Suzy: Are you heading East? Well, congratulations. This is great news. What was the final straw that broke your theological camel’s back?
She is doing no such thing, Mark. Suzy is "Orthodox Presbyterian." I guess that means "true Presbyterian."
St. Paul did not believe in Christ until he brain was exchanged in an instant with a new operating system. It was none of his doing, or so he says.
What is interesting is that it won’t be the church or the church fathers who will stand as advocates with those who trusted them in their interpretation and who must give account of their salvation
Why should anyone give account of his or her salvation when we didn't earn it and we can't purchase it? It's either given or withheld, Rreformed theology says. So, pray tell, what are we acocunting for?
1) The word of God cleanses those men whom Christ died for, those who are "the called according to His purpose." (Romans 8:28)
2) The reformed do not say "the bulk of men will wind up in the everlasting fires of hell." I'm a post-millenialist. I believe the word of God will transform the world, and men from all nations and races will hear with ears given by God and believe in Jesus Christ, by the will of God.
Besides, the article that began this thread concerns your pope's concerns that Protestant churches are defective, so it seems you guys are the ones restricting salvation.
Once again you confuse the issue with rhetoric and straw men. No one said that God’s elect can do no wrong. The very fact the God chose them shows that they were not able to choose him because of their sin. Also, They don't go around saying the things you implied, but they are the only one CAPABLE of pleasing God, because they ARE his children.
We all agree that God stands for all thsoe concepts, but we do not agree what these things describe other than God. There is no greater mystery than God Himself. No one can describe Him, so how can that be "specific?"
If that were true, then people who cliam to be religious would be praying 24/7/365. They wouldn't have time or desire for shopping, vacations, birthdays and weddings, fashion, and other things of the world.
If people were as addicted to God as they claim they are (like hypocritical Pharisees) they would dedicate more than one hour a week to God, and even that seems too much for some.
"...He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD." -- Jeremiah 23:28
Why would you hold beliefs you "presume" to be in error?
Oh please, these are word games the reformed are playing, sophistry of the worst kind! You need to acquaint yourself with Mr. Luther who proclaimed that even if he committed 1,000 murders and fornications a day God would forgive Him.
So, while the "elect" are capable of doing wrong, they are forgiven, which is like saying "you did nothing wrong." I guess it pleases God when His children commit 1,000 murders or fornications a day and He can just wave their sins away...and just lovingly say to them "My darlings..."
Because the official doctrine is insufficiently convincing. I am willing to presume that I am wrong and the Church is right, based on its collective knowledge and intellect, even if official doctrine does not explain why it is so.
No wonder you think the Bible is "generalized" and does not contain "specifics" if you actually image hell is just a fuzzy state of mind. The Bible tells us hell is not, as your definition states, a "separation from God" because God is everywhere, even in hell.
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." -- Psalm 139:7-8"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
Again, your argument is with Scripture, Kosta.
So then we may assume some of these opinions of yours that we've been reading for months are "wrong."
Are these opinions of yours "wrong" in the specifics or just in an overall generality?
Ah, so true. But you asked for the definition of "love," and Christ has given that to you, as anyone can read in Scripture.
I Cor 2;9 indicates "we" may not be able to even concieve of both Hell or Heaven currently..
Could be a dimensional thing..
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.