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.
Right.
I’d take wisdom over knowledge any day. Start with ‘sophia’ and you can gain ‘gnosis’, but perhaps not ‘ginosko’, as Solomon proved with his idolatry.
Forgive me, I’m sipping my Port and studying, training, er, I’m piddling around. Yeah,that’s it, I’m piddling around. Oh my, now I need to use the bathroom!
” Is God, in His divine nature, subject to pleasure?”
I would say, according to scripture, the answer is yes.
Isaiah 62:5, “For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.”
Zephaniah 3:17, “The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with
singing.”
Matt. 3:17, “And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Well, if it is any consolation, it was all greek to me :>)
***I’d take wisdom over knowledge any day.***
That’s what Solomon chose from God. Good choice :>)
All Scripture is of use; do you hear me denying that?
Where does it say that all Scripture is of equal use? Where does it say that the disciples on Earth after Jesus had been taken up have equal or greater value than the words that Our Lord spoke while on Earth? I understand that you are Presbyterian; thank you. I was being only mildly sarcastic in order to prove a point. You have only helped to prove my point even further. The folks that build a theology on Paul that is opposed to the Gospels prove my point. You prove my point by ignoring Matt 5:, Matt 25:, Rev 20: and on and on in favour of cherry picked verses from Paul.
If you take the words of a man as equal to or greater than Christ’s words, now THAT is idolatry.
I’m not sure that God hates. Do you have any Scripture?
See my post 5931 which addresses love, if you would.
***If you take the words of a man as equal to or greater than Christ’s words, now THAT is idolatry.***
On that I agree. I put no man, or church, above the word of God. Our problem is that I believe that the whole of scripture is God’s word, where you believe that the gospels are somehow greater than the rest.
***Where does it say that all Scripture is of equal use? ***
2 Timothy 3:16-17. Oh, wait, that can’t be true because YOU don’t believe it as the truth.
Romans 3:
21
6 But now 7 the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,
22
the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;
23
all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.
24
They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,
25
whom God set forth as an expiation, 8 through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,
26
through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.
27
What occasion is there then for boasting? 9 It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. 10
28
For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
29
Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles,
30
for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
31
Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law. 11
7 [21] But now: Paul adopts a common phrase used by Greek authors to describe movement from disaster to prosperity. The expressions indicate that Romans 3:21-26 are the consolatory answer to Romans 3:9-20.
8 [25] Expiation: this rendering is preferable to “propitiation,” which suggests hostility on the part of God toward sinners. As Paul will be at pains to point out (Romans 5:8-10), it is humanity that is hostile to God.
9 [27-31] People cannot boast of their own holiness, since it is God’s free gift (Romans 3:27), both to the Jew who practices circumcision out of faith and to the Gentile who accepts faith without the Old Testament religious culture symbolized by circumcision (Romans 3:29-30).
10 [27] Principle of faith: literally, “law of faith.” Paul is fond of wordplay involving the term “law”; cf Romans 7:21, 23; 8:2. Since “law” in Greek may also connote “custom” or “principle,” his readers and hearers would have sensed no contradiction in the use of the term after the negative statement concerning law in Romans 3:20.
11 [31] We are supporting the law: giving priority to God’s intentions. God is the ultimate source of law, and the essence of law is fairness. On the basis of the Mosaic covenant, God’s justice is in question if those who sinned against the law are permitted to go free (see Romans 3:23-26). In order to rescue all humanity rather than condemn it, God thinks of an alternative: the law or “principle” of faith (Romans 3:27). What can be more fair than to admit everyone into the divine presence on the basis of forgiveness grasped by faith? Indeed, this principle of faith antedates the Mosaic law, as Paul will demonstrate in Romans 4, and does not therefore mark a change in divine policy.
God said, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.” God said he hates. Why? I don’t know. But before they were in the womb, he hated Esau.
I saw your post, you do not believe that God’s love is an emotion. That is your opinion. It has as much weight as my opinion.
post 5968.
This passage says that all Scripture is profitable to use. It most certain does not say that all Scripture is as profitable as all other Scripture.
I give you entire chapters of the words of Christ and you give me cherry picked Pauline verses out of context. You are building your theology on strung together Pauline verses and completely ignoring the central themes and specific instructions of the Gospels. No wonder that we have diverged. Your theology has entirely different emphasis than the Church’s.
We emphasize Christ. You emphasize a man. I suspect that is why Calvin and Luther (but not Zwingli - I wonder why) hold such high esteem. If you would hold post-Resurrection men to have a greater influence on your theology than Jesus Christ, it is no wonder that the Reformers and the Restorers and even street huckster that comes along has access to your minds, your souls and your pocketbooks.
As I travel along through these debates, I really and truly wonder why somebody doesn’t just come out with their truth and create the Church of Paul and eliminate the entire four Gospels and the Catholic Letters and Revelation from the Bible altogether.
Just what do you have against Paul? Was he not an Apostle like Peter and John, and the others? Why do you think Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are any better that Romans or Hebrews?
***This passage says that all Scripture is profitable to use. It most certain does not say that all Scripture is as profitable as all other Scripture. ***
If it is scripture it is GOD BREATHED. It is the word of God, therefore it is ALL GOOD. All of it.
But you might enquire further as to the meaning of the verse.
Rom 9:13 - As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.”
The literal rendering, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated,” suggests an attitude of divine hostility that is not implied in Paul’s statement. In Semitic usage “hate” means to love less; cf Luke 14:26 with Matthew 10:37. Israel’s unbelief reflects the mystery of the divine election that is always operative within it. Mere natural descent from Abraham does not ensure the full possession of the divine gifts; it is God’s sovereign prerogative to bestow this fullness upon, or to withhold it from, whomsoever he wishes; cf Matthew 3:9; John 8:39. The choice of Jacob over Esau is a case in point.
So, God prefers Jacob over Esau and has a greater place for him in His Divine scheme. Not hate.
And Love: I’d suggest that you Google up some dissertations on Love. You may find that Love is an action. It is a conscious act. It is not a passive emotion. Overall, it means that God consciously loves all of His Creation with His will. Not just cherry picked portions of it.
Please do not post to me again.
Excuse this minor intrusion. You posited, “If you would hold post-Resurrection men to have a greater influence on your theology than Jesus Christ...” What was the purpose of Jesus sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Do you not believe that is was by the inspiration of God in them that the disciples turned Apostles preached the Gospel of Grace? Jesus spoke as one man prior to Pentecost. Following, He spoke through many men. I don’t believe Protestants hold these men to be of greater influence because they are preaching and writing by His inspiration via The Holy Spirit. Did He not tell them when they marveled at the miracles He did that they would do greater, more? They didn’t do these by their own power rather the Power of God in them and through them.
He doesn’t believe in Paul.
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.