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.
Thanks Fru. Just to be clear, you do believe there was *some* corruption introduced by Rome, right, even though perhaps it didn't result in the total emptying of Grace in the Roman communion?
I would be surprised if a Reformed Christian didn't believe that there was *some* corruption...heck, then why be Reformed in the first place? ;-)
To say that we "want the Church's book but reject the Church's inspirational authority" is far from ironic. The Church did not give us the Scriptures, the Scriptures gave us the Church. What the Church did was institutionally formalize what was already commonly agreed upon in the Church. They did not determine which works were divinely inspired Scripture and which were something less. They formalized within the ecclesiastical institution of the church those works which were already recognized as Scripture.
As I pointed out earlier though and you confirmed in your post, it really is all about authority.
“The key is to find the truly authorized leaders, not those who set themselves up as leaders.”
You are right there. When we called our Pastor we spent weeks in prayer and fasting about it and the Holy Spirit impressed upon the whole congregation that he was the man chosen of God for us so we voted instead of casting dice, and it was unanimous. The Elders in the church recognized the calling by ordaining him by praying and laying on hands to signify that he was the man the Spirit had pointed out. We have been blessed ever since. We did this according to the protocol set forth in Acts 13:1-3.
Which NT book was preached from on the day of Pentecost?
-A8
Where did your "Elders" get the authority they conferred on this ordinand?
-A8
The Fuss, P-Marlowe, is that Christ says narrow is the road and Protestants insist it is as wide as it can get. Nothing is true except the "inner leading" of the Holy Spirit. With dear sisters like Alamo-Girl, you could be sactrificing babies in some Mayan ritual and claim "inner leanings of the Holy Spirit." That's what adiaireton8 had in mind when he asked her does infanticide qualify as bring led by the Spirit?
The broad road proposed by non-catholics is one of limitless allowance that as long as you believe in anything in the name of Christ as your Savior you are on the right path, no matter which road you take. It is the ultimate relativism that only someone interested in diluting the truth could wish; it's an anything goes religion.
The serpent used the same tactic in the Garden of Eden. He introduced doubt, and relativism. Eventually Eve was convinced that she and Adam will not die, as the serpent managed to get her to doubt God Himself! She was convinced that she was doing the "right" thing, and that becoming "just like gods" was okay, that disobeying, worse -- doubting God was reasonable.
Why would God want 33,000 different denominations? Why owuld God want some Baptists to be Calivinsits (Reformed) and deny free will, while others don't? Why would he want Presbyterian Calvinists to be 'baby splashers" and Baptist Calivinists not? Why would he want Mormons, a pagan cult masquerading as "Christianity," to believe in three separate "gods," preach that God the Father used to be a mortal man, or that Jesus' borther is none other than Satan himself? Who would be better served with such religion: God or the devil? I think the answer is clear.
I can't say whether Spirit led you out of Mormonism or not, but if you were ever a Mormon in your heart then you believed that God the Father used to be a man and had a beginning, and you had to the Holy Trinity but believed in three gods, and you had to believe that Satan is Jesus' "brother," and many other things Mormons believe. If you ever were a Mormon in your heart, it was the Spirit leading you astray even if, as a Mormon you were professing Christ as your Savior.
Christ is potentially everyone's Savior. But in order to come to Chirst, we need the correct path and that correct path is the correect, orthodox faith He dleivered, not anyone's fancy. Through Him, anyone can be saved, but not through false religions no matter how much they call on His name and on the Holy Script. Christ delivered the Faith and the authority to his Apostles and through the Apostolic sucession that faith and that authority continue unchanged. He did not give everyone a bible and said "just read it; it's perspicuous."
solid argument, wasted in vein i suspect...
You're asking me which NT book was preached from on the day of an event you would not know about except for the NT book of Acts? Now THAT is irony :)
My point, friend, is that Scripture was Scripture long before the Church as an ecclesiastical institution formally recognized it as such. Those Scriptures were the ones that had been originally written to the various churches by the Apostles and were themselves held as authoritative.
Really? And which book of the OT establishes the Church? You do realize the Church was born in 33 AD and there was not a single NT verse written at that time.
Your historical overview is misleading. Some churches read their own set of "Scriptures." couple of hundred years later, they (church hierarchy that you deny) agreed on the majority of books, but still continued to read some books (scrolls that were later rejected (Epistle of Barnabas, for example), while rejecting some scrolls which were later accepted (Relation of John, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, etc.). So either way the Church, in order to select the inspired text and reject the non-inspired (some 200 circulating scrolls) had to be lead by the Holy Spirit.
Surely, you don't believe the HS left the Church along with that disobedient priest, Luther?
Thanks. I thought it’s worth laying down the cards so we all know where we are.
-A8
Yes, exactly. Matthew was written by Matthew the Apostle. John was written by John the Apostle. Ditto the Epistles of Paul, Peter, and James.
But consider also that Luke was not written by an Apostle. Mark was not written by an Apostle. Is it not curious that an infallible book could be written by two men who were not themselves infallible? What gave these books any authority?
You seem not to realize that we Catholics [and here I'm including Orthodox in that term] were there on that day. We knew about it before it was written down. If the NT had not been written, it would have been passed down by the fathers.
My point, friend, is that Scripture was Scripture long before the Church as an ecclesiastical institution formally recognized it as such.
That is an entirely different claim. I agree with that claim. But that is completely different from your previous claim that "The Church did not give us the Scriptures, the Scriptures gave us the Church". Initially, on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles *were* the Church. Years later the Apostles wrote the NT Scriptures. Therefore the Church gave us the Scriptures. There was no such thing as 'sola scriptura' in the early Church because no NT books had even been written. See Sungenis's Not By Scripture Alone.
-A8
Thanks. We are on the same sheet of music, A8, when it comes to this.
I disagree that Protestants "insist it is as wide as it can get." You're either confusing some present-day evangelical groups with Historical Protestants or you're wrongly recognizing the distinction between Protestant ecclesiology and soteriology. As a historical Protestant I readily affirm that they way is quite narrow.
The serpent used the same tactic in the Garden of Eden. He introduced doubt, and relativism. Eventually Eve was convinced that she and Adam will not die, as the serpent managed to get her to doubt God Himself! She was convinced that she was doing the "right" thing, and that becoming "just like gods" was okay, that disobeying, worse -- doubting God was reasonable.
What the serpent did was call into question God's own word ("Hath God said...?"). It was God's very own words which they disobeyed. That they rationalized, debated, weighed, and ultimately rejected God's clear words on the issue does not indicate a deficiency on the part of God or an inherent flaw in God's commands that requires Him to work through other means. God's word is God's word whether someone believes it and obeys it or not.
Why would God want 33,000 different denominations? Why owuld God want some Baptists to be Calivinsits (Reformed) and deny free will, while others don't? Why would he want Presbyterian Calvinists to be 'baby splashers" and Baptist Calivinists not? Why would he want Mormons, a pagan cult masquerading as "Christianity," to believe in three separate "gods," preach that God the Father used to be a mortal man, or that Jesus' borther is none other than Satan himself? Who would be better served with such religion: God or the devil? I think the answer is clear.
Again with the phoney-baloney 33,000 denominations garbage. Please, friend...enough with this tired, thoroughly refuted red herring.
The parallel argument is this: why would God want sin? Why would He allow sin to remain in the world? Who is better served by sin remaining in the world: God or the devil?
The answer is that while these things in and of themselves are not what God desires, He ordains them according to higher purposes which He does desire. A roundabout explanation of such a notion is given us in Rom 9:22-24. There is purpose in His allowing such things to be.
Christ is potentially everyone's Savior. But in order to come to Chirst, we need the correct path and that correct path is the correect, orthodox faith He dleivered, not anyone's fancy. Through Him, anyone can be saved, but not through false religions no matter how much they call on His name and on the Holy Script. Christ delivered the Faith and the authority to his Apostles and through the Apostolic sucession that faith and that authority continue unchanged. He did not give everyone a bible and said "just read it; it's perspicuous."
The Bereans knew where to look when looking to be sure they were not being led astray. Christ's Apostles delivered the Faith to the Church in their letters, which were recognized and understood to be their authoritative, inspired words. It's those very words you are forced to appeal to in arguing for the necessity of a specific institutional conduit through which those words must be delievered over time in the manner it sees fit.
Beautifully put ...
“I’m going to ignore these ad hominems.” You’re just too kind to we little folk. It must be hard for you to ignore from your over-arching perch.
You are right here, but Satan did not actually challenge God's Word; he challenged the authorized interpretation that Adam had given to Eve. The debate was about interpretation. Satan provided an alternative [non-authorized] and spiritualized intepretation about dying (i.e. dying to ignorance and blindness), and Eve followed the non-authorized interpretation.
-A8
I'm curious as to how we can say that Clement a) was a Roman in Philippi and b) was the companion of Paul.
The reason I say that is that all the accounts I've read (and some of them are apocryphal, so using them with appropriate cautiousness) say that Clement was the companion of Peter in the East--not Paul.
The way I read Philippians 4, Clement is right there in Rome with Paul...and I don't know of any evidence that Clement was together with Paul anywhere outside that city.
I'm heavily researching this era right now, so any scrap of information you have would prove helpful. I've already gone through all the Clementine literature.
-A8
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.