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.
I do not tread on irishtenor’s beliefs.
I do, however, believe that the belief of the creation and subsequent casting of the bulk of humanity into hellfire forever for no reason other than it’s the whim of the Almighty is a nasty belief. Especially when it completely contradicts the bulk of the Bible and practically the entire Gospels.
I believe that Calvinism is warped and twisted and completely unBiblical and completely opposite to the beliefs of the Church Fathers. I have debated with irishtenor and found, to this point anyway, that he is rational and serious and yet commmitted to this belief. How would you have me proceed?
What about the understanding thereof?
Relatively few of the Reformed proofs result from the Bible - it is mostly from St. Paul’s corrections of straying congregations. I also find it interesting that you would entertain that idea that the Gospels are not the pinnacle of the Bible.
Have a beer.
***But do I understand you to say that the freedom God gives in Christ does not mean a freedom to reject God, but one can on a case by case basis, so to speak, reject His instructions as to this or that moral decision?***
Once a person has been claimed by God, he cannot lose salvation. It is not his to lose. Jesus bought our salvation, so he owns it, not us. We can, and do, reject his instruction on a daily basis (its called sin:>) but that in not way cancels our salvation. Jesus died for ALL our sins. The ones we did, the ones we do, and the ones we will do. Jesus paid it all. We still are bothered by the sin nature, as we are still in the flesh. Paul puts it like this in Romans 7.
Romans 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me
(2) Sometimes as teenagers we “hate” our parents for a while. But we still love them, we’ve just kind of lost sight of that for a while ...
And sometimes we have to punish our children, but that in no way diminishes our love for them :>)
***I believe that Calvinism is warped and twisted and completely unBiblical and completely opposite to the beliefs of the Church Fathers.***
Very well, I believe that your beliefs are completely incoherent and incomprehensable. You use bits and pieces of the Bible to make a point or two, but completely ignore or resent other parts of the Bible that YOU disagree with. Your arguments are childish, your tendancy to name call is immature, and your denigrating of those who do not believe as you do is uncalled for.
***How would you have me proceed?***
When you have a decent agrument, and wish to discuss what the Bible says about it, and you quit from the name calling, and are willing to listen to the other side in a respectful manner, you can post to me again.
I see the wisdom of your post.
I pray that we all may come back to God; the recent and hateful theologies of man may yet make way for, well, the Way.
Dante Alighieri probably did it better. You’ve gotta choose the translation, though. Some of them, unless you’re fluent in Middle Ages Italian, get rather strenuous to read.
I am genuinely taken aback at your posting.
I have reviewed my recent posts and actually been pleasantly surprised at the number of Bible verses that I have quoted in order to disprove the Calvinistic beliefs. They have come from the beginning of the Bible right through to Revelation.
I do not use bits and pieces; the entire Bible is Scripture. Calvin’s biography is well distributed; he was an objectionable man with a bent to tyranny. His religion reflected the man. If you wish to debate point by point, the 5 points of Calvinism, I am at your behest.
You may wish to review, however, the verses that I and others have posted. I suspect that the Calvinistic argument, so effective with the insular and self-important burghers of Geneva, may not stand up against the theologically educated, and the Biblically informed, in the arena of these fora.
I am not a Calvinist nor an Arminian(RCC/EO/some reform) either, ever.. however Calvinists and Arminians both have some good points.. neither have the last word.. I don't believe you can work your way to "heaven" nor are you predestined for it.. God who can indeed "SEE" the beginning from the end(not linear as far time is concerned) and still expects certain activitys(work) is beyond my "logic".. Actually predestination and gross spiritual works are needed to show the nexus.. Somewhere in between is the reality I suppose.. So I condemn neither.. In my spiritual life there is room for both sides.. as far as I remain separate from them.. I can argue both sides but don't.. Denomination is idolatry..
You absolutely do not understand Reformed doctrine and your constant attacks on a dead saint that cannot defend himself is pathetic. It is only out of kindness that Irishtenor does not rant on and on about some of the wicked Popes that you call Apostles. You might try a little kindness if you want to debate with Irishtenor instead of constant taunting. Just being a mom.
I had a "vision" that explained it all to me.. or a version of it that I could grasp(concieve of).. Anything else would be childs play or fiction (to me).. I release snippets sometimes, probably wrongly..
Well, the Church does not dispute things I sometimes dispute. The Church offers nothing more or less than what the Protestants offer here on the FR (scriptures). In fact, the Church usually offers less, because the Church does not polemicize issues; it simply treats them as divine mystery, a paradox in our eyes, and offers unequivocal submission God's revelation whether we understand it or not.
The Church offers scriptural reasons for theological issues, but it also reminds us that not everything was written down, but has been known and practiced by the Church from the beginning.
The Church also implements discipline such as fasting. Eastern Orthodox faithful fast about 180 days a year in total; there are three 40-day fasts, and some minor ones, and every Wednesday and Friday.
The fast consists of abstaining from all animal products, olive oil and "passion" foods and drinks. I am not sure why the Church implemented this discipline, and I can't find a reasonable explanation for it, but I do knowthat fasting rules have changed over the centuries.
I consider these practices very unhealthy for some people (diabetics, for instance), but although the Church will not insist on anyone adhering to disciplines if it means harming their health, most faithful will continue to fast even if it is not in the best interest of their health, treating discipline almost like Gospel.
I do believe that the Church is right and that everything the Church does is for the glory of God and in the purest interest of helping the faithful stay the course. I would say it is also biblical, but then your Bible does not consist of the same books and it is a moot point. Our source of authority is in disagreement, and cannot be equated.
I assume error on my part because of the 2,000-year spiritual life of the Church, the various spiritual giants who contributed to that life, the unbroken chain from the Apostles until present days and an unchanged faith. Just because I don't understand it, or see it, doesn't mean it is as I see it and understand it.
Unfortunately, the Church and well-meaning Christians who offer their opinions, fail to convince me that their version of the truth is indeed the truth. So, I submit to the authority of the Church as a manifestation of my awareness that the Church is more experienced, educated and knowledgeable than I am, the way we submit to a physician, trustingly but not blindly.
That's not out of charity, but because the popes are not apostles.
Indeed. Herein lies the rub. Not only do we not even use the same canon, but they don't even treat the Gospels as the prism through which all that was written beocmes fully revealed. The Gospels are a living witness of God, not a revelation in a state of trans of some prophet.
The priest absolves you (binds on earth and it is bound in heaven) because you ask him to as part of the confession. The priest approves your request knowing God shall approve it provided your confession is true, and provided the priest's intentions are true.
if one is delinquent in making confession, he is not even supposed to take communion. If true, that sounds pretty forced to me
Confession is repentance, FK. If you repent, you are forgiven. Should you receive Christ without repentance?
The Bible does tell us to confess to others, but for the sins we have committed against them
Sins committed against God or others are still sin against God.
I have no issue with confessing all sins to another person if one is so moved, but confessing directly to God is taking a shortcut?
Where does it say in the Bible we should confess sins (only) directly to God? Confession to God is no effort, no fruit of repentance, because he already knows your sins. You don't have to tell Him anything! But if you are really sorry and you tell someone else about how wrong you were, that's an honest desire to "get it off your chest" and repent. That's why the Lord says that loving those who love you is no effort. The real challenge is loving those who hate you. Likewise, confessing to Him who knows your sins is no effort.
Doesn't this go against everything we teach our children? If your child has wronged someone and wants to apologize face to face do you tell her to instead tell a friend to pass along the message?
There you go with your children examples again. It's not the same, FK. God already knows. It's no effort 'fessing up to God. Loving those who love you is no accomplishment.
I'm not arguing that it isn't a conditional statement, it is. I'm saying it's not an offer. When I tell my son "If it snows tonight, then you will be shoveling in the morning", I am not making him an offer, I am stating a matter of fact because I have the authority to do so
More children examples...okay, it is not an offer if you say "if the earth is hit by a comet tomorrow, you don't have to go to work." But if God makes a promise to someone, "If you do this, I will raise you" it is a promisary conditional offer.
***Relatively few of the Reformed proofs result from the Bible -***
Try reading the Westminster Confession of Faith. Every single line is proofed with Bible text.
***Relatively few of the Reformed proofs result from the Bible - it is mostly from St. Paul’s corrections of straying congregations. ***
Obviously does not concider anything the Bible except the 4 gospels.
Actually I don't think Kosta even accepts those.
Which is really why it is an exercise in futility to try to debate with him. If the scripture contradicts kosta, then the scripture is wrong. Kosta is always right. Kosta is more authoritative than the scriptures.
It's about harming little ones. The discussion was about God killing little ones, hence the reference.
Elder Cleopa once wrote a short story illustrating this apparent paradox, but I can't find it. The short of it is that we don't know who is guilty and who is not. Outward appearances mean nothing. They can be as misleading as ever.
In that case, based on results, would it be fair to assume that those who die young are greater sinners than those who live to old age? I just can't imagine anyone thinking that. You brought up the Mother Theresa example. Do you assume that her faith was strong and genuine BECAUSE she lived to an old age?
If I find Elder Cleopa's story I will freepmail it to you.
Thank you. I would be happy to read it.
Maybe those of us who reach ripe old age are the most recalcitrant and sinful of all, "slow" in attaining sanctity, and are given extra time to compete the journey. Some make it other's don't.
But that would appear to thwart the idea that sin causes physical death. It is a paradox indeed.
The problem (and that explains the anger) is that the west always treated physical death as punishment from God, and not a consequence of our sin.
I would fully agree that physical death is certainly no punishment for the elect. But for the same reason, I can't see it as being a consequence of sin. Going to Heaven would be like a "promotion", so wouldn't it seem like God was "rewarding" sin?
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.