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.
Allow me to retract.
Not that I wouldn’t agree with Paul. But more inclined to go along with that interpretation of Paul.
Apologies.
I didn't know that, thanks. That sounds like an impressive amount of education.
Most aptly put.
Thank you for the post.
I don’t know if you’re close, but I sure enjoyed that little truth missive!
I sure am enjoying this series of exchanges you big dogs are having. Time for me to get back up on the porch.
You might want to check this “It will take hundreds of years to have multiple copies circulating around the Christian world” ... depending upon the quantity you choose to name, there were within weeks, copies of the letters sent to a church, and these copies were distributed among the churches which were a mere 30 to 50 or less miles apart. A woman like Lydia, for instance, would have had a scribe working for her in business and able to clip off a dozen copies in a matter of a week and in another week have them circulating to the other churches. Something so prescious would not have been ‘stuffed under a bushel’. The Armenian Church, for instance, has copies of very early copies!
Instead I would claim that the Church is steeped in nothing more than the Pelagius heresy that was thoroughly condemned by the Augustine and the Council of Orange. Man saving themselves or man being saved by their works is no different.
Some simply refuse to understand this fact because it doesn't fit with the kind of Care Bear creature of how they preceive God to be. It isn't fair in the minds of some that God would send some to eternal torment. Sorry, that isn't what the scriptures tells us.
There is no artificial barriers of 'haves' and 'haves not'. There are only those who are 'slaves to sin' and 'slaves to righteousness' (Rom 6). Those who have been set free by God's grace and mercy do not blame God but rejoice that we have been set free by His power. It is up to Him who He wishes to set free.
Jhn 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Seven
I don't think any side can be said to take that amount of material "as is". We all interpret some, you through the Church and we through other scripture, and we all take some at face value. So really, the "Words of Jesus" for Apostolics are the words of the Church's interpretation of His words. And understandably, everything follows from there, for good or otherwise.
OK, good. Glad to hear you say that. :)
Amen A-G and thanks for the ping
“The Reformation believes the church is a continuation of those faithful Jews chosen by God.”
Really? Then why base most of the Reformation on the Apostle to the Gentiles?
“It isn’t just grace according to your comment. It is 1) God’s grace, 2) acceptance of that grace, and 3) good works. God does 1/3 and man does 2/3. Doesn’t that sum it up? And if God offers this grace to everyone, as you claim, then what is there for God to do?”
I guess that the mathematical concept of “and” is still not getting through. In processing terms, it is “serial” rather than “parallel”.
Scriptures tell that God desires all men to go to Heaven.
“God desires everyone to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1Tim.2:4)
We also know what we are supposed to do and what the consequences are:
the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds (Rom.2:5-6...2:5-11).
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (2Cor.5:10).
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. (Jn.5:28-29)
Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done. (Rev.20:11-13).
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done (Mat.16:27).
- “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’ (Mat.25:21...21-28).
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left
“Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me.’ (verse 40)
“Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ “They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do to one of the least of these, you did not do to me.’ (verse 45)
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (verse46)
In verse 46 is the execution of both these sentences... Grace and Faith are not even mentioned, nor imputed righteousness... just good or bad personal deeds, our own righteousness.
each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; (1Cor.3:8-9).
Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism. (Col.3:24).
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (Mat.16:27).
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (Lk.6:38).
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap...And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith. (Gal.6:7-10).
So what are grace and faith for?
The Grace of God is a most wonderful gift, the greatest treasure on earth, able to fill us with the love of God, because Jesus Christ Himself comes freely into you, just by faith, and then you can love and do good deeds, and not you, but Jesus who is in you! (Gal.2:20)... In Christianity, faith is the foundation of the building, love is the building itself, and hope is the windows of that building, to receive fresh air and light and warmth and energy of the sun... (1Cor.13, Gal.5:5-6).
when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will give to each person according to what he has done...For God does not show favoritism. (Rom.2:5-6, 11) But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. (Col.3:25)
So who goes to heaven?
“God desires everyone to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1Tim.2:4)...
The “faith” is a “gift”, a “charisma”... like your hands or your face, or the grace of God, or the Bible, or the Church... all are “gifts” of God... and you do not go to Heaven because of the “gifts” you received, but because of the “fruits”... because of the “works” you did using your hands, and your Christian faith, and the grace of God, and the knowledge of the Bible, and the maternal care of the Church.
Matthew
Chapter 7
1
“Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
3
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.
6
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, 4 or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.
7
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
8
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
9
Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread,
10
or a snake when he asks for a fish?
11
If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.
12
“Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.
13
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.
14
How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16
By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20
So by their fruits you will know them.
21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’
24
“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
28
When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching,
29
for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Are there any further questions about how important works are? They are fully as important as God’s saving grace and as fully important in accepting it.
You must have all three or you have no everlasting life. Does this clear things up a bit?
Well, I can objectively understand how it looks that way to those who do not "subscribe". :) I have been trying to stress that it can only be seen as mechanical from omniscient God's POV. Always from the human POV, all is new. Therefore, since we humans experience the same thing no matter which theology is correct, I don't understand the "badness" of having God be fully in control.
Our prayers mean something to us because we believe that they actively work to help us towards our road to God and therefore our salvation. They do something and mean something to a believer trying to communicate with God, or else if they are truly mechanical, then they mean nothing since the intent of the individual is what matters.
We also believe that our prayers mean something because they actively work to help us towards our road to God through sanctification. We become closer to God because of prayer. This is always worthy and important. And to be of any benefit, of course the intent of the one praying has to be true.
Does that make sense in the first half of the 1st Century?
Most of the Christians were illiterate and poor and could not support literate people to copy out many copies of letters by hand. Obviously some survived, but how many did not? Remember; no emails, no mass storage or production. The example of Lydia is an exception, rather than a rule. Plus, she was from Thyatira; I don’t recall an epistle sent there, so she may or may not have had access to any of any of the Apostles’ letters.
Actually the majority of priests that I have dealt with have a minimum of a master’s degree and many of them have doctorates and post-doctorates degrees.
This includes parish priests.
The only ‘badness’ that I can see about the robot slave theory is that it goes against so much of Scripture.
If God had had some of us be robot slaves picked at whim from the masses and the rest of us He flushed down the toilet, then it should make sense that way. There’s just too much evidence to support such a theology.
The Paulines have yet to discover the truth that they too will be judged according to their deeds and that no amount of faith and self-righteousness they impute will save them.
But, more likely than not, they will continue to live in their self-delusion that they were 'saved" when they cried "Jesus, Jesus!"
They will continue their selective theology of reading that which suits their "dont-worry-be-happy" religion, convinced that all their wrongs are not their deeds that await judgment and that no matter what they do they are guided by the "indwelling spirit."
By excluding themselves from the rest of the humanity, as a (s)elect elite, they will no doubt continue to sin boldly and think nothing of it as long as they call on Jesus' name.
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.