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.
It is a very, very subtle shift in seeing and a crafty temptation of the enemy. Sadly, it is not uncommon. It is fear of man vs. fear of God at its root. Even this will not prevent the purposes of God however. Our Father will do whatever is good and pleasing and perfect to build His Church and the gates of hell shall not! prevail against her. Amen.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
LOL!!! Actually I was confused for the first 30 years of my Christian life. What really is being denied is that God grants us all things. Humility, faith, grace, repentence, everything.
I find it incredible that many Christians, of all persausions, are unable to accept this fact. We certainly mouth that God gives us everything, but we really don't believe it; certainly not when it comes to violating our philosophy that man is in control.
We rest in the promises and assurances of God as they are written in His word. God has said it, therefore it will come to past. That is one of the reason we put such an emphasis on the word of God, not emotions or the acts of non-Christians. Just about everything can be imitated like the magicians before Pharaoh. God doesn't want us walking by sight. We trust in His promises.
Um...not when God commanded them to run into the Promise Land and kill everyone there. Not much of an opportunity to evangelize in my mind.
The only thing the Hebrews had wrong was that they tried to live by the Law and not by Grace. The Law was only given to show how no one could live by it and to accept God's grace. We must admit this fact. Some still don't get it.
Jer 1:4-5 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
For The One who is omnipotent & omniscient, it is both foreknowledge and foreplanning.
It cannot be otherwise, unless we feel like dissecting The Almighty into non-communicating separate parts.
"Therefore," says the Pelagian, "He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them," says he, "before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so." Let us, then, look into the words of the apostle and see whether He chose us before the foundation of the world because we were going to be holy and immaculate, or in order that we might be so. "Blessed," says he, "be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; even as He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted." [Eph. 1.3.] Not, then, because we were to be so, but that we might be so. Assuredly it is certain,—assuredly it is manifest. Certainly we were to be such for the reason that He has chosen us, predestinating us to be such by His grace. Therefore "He blessed us with spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ Jesus, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight, predestinating us in love to the adoption of children through Jesus Christ to Himself." - Augustine
The chosen people are the Jews.
We gentiles got included under God’s covenant version 2.0 given to us by Jesus.
And others were cut off.
Um...that's the part they God wrong. God would never do that. At least not the Christian God. It must have been one of those "voices" we all mistake for God.
The only thing the Hebrews had wrong was that they tried to live by the Law and not by Grace
And whose omission was it not to mention "Oh, by the way, don't try to live by the law because none of you will be able to." Why give the law to begin with? And, why would God give the law knowing the Jews will corrupt it and make it obsolete?
Maybe for the same reason the Apostles were sent to preach tot he 12 tribes of Israel...or why St. Paul went to Arabia (of all places) for three years after his conversion...when it was certain the people there would reject Christ. or was is just a "practice run?"
Such little quirks make some of us wonder...like why is human the only creature with a crossed respiratory and alimentary tracts. Others think it's "obvious" and wonder why the rest just don't get it: God gave us crossed respiratory and alimentary tracts in order to "teach" us that we can choke trying to eat and breathe at the same time. Brilliant!
It make for very effective learning. It's like teaching a child not to touch hot stoves by letting him touch a hot stove! If parents used such techniques that would be child abuse. Somehow, when we attribute such teaching methods to God it becomes "love."
The Law was only given to show how no one could live by it and to accept God's grace
That's a heck of a way to make a point, HD. It just doesn't sound like something Christ would do.
We must admit this fact. Some still don't get it
If I know your take on this, you'd say (as you have in the past) that we are who we are, where we are, and what we are because God wills is. If this is what you (still) believe, then don't be putting the burden of admission on God's "tools!" If all the deciding is done by God, then those who, as you say, don't admit it, do so by God's will and not on their own, and if they don't get it it's not theirs to get. Get it? Probably not, but that's okay.
There are probably a handful of people that would. From what we’re understanding of Mother Teresa, it would seem that she would.
But I take your statement as substantially correct. Most people wouldn’t do something without some sort of return.
The human Jesus had emotions, sure - that’s part of the package.
Our relationship with God is quite an interesting philosophical subject. Since God is further above us than we are above viruses, any relationship with Him means that He has to reach down very far to us.
I’ve been thinking about the idea that we can have a relationship with God because we are rational beings. I’m convinced that this is not so. We can have a relationship with God only because He opens up that conduit for us.
It is not the believer who is making the choice, so why even mention them???
It is not the believer’s foreknowledge under discussion. It is God’s.
Therefore, God always knows everything or He is not God. God always controls everything or He is not God.
God cannot be ignorant of those who would have selected Him when He makes choices. “If the works done here (Jeru) had been done in Tyre & Sidon (TS), they would have repented long before...”
Yet, God chose NOT to do things that way, and instead chose this way. Therefore, if God knew those who would have repented THAT TS way, then He also knew those who would have repented THIS Jeru way.
Can there be any denying God’s foreknowledge?
Yet, God chose this way and thereby some others were not saved. Did not God’s sovereign choice then lead to the loss of some and the salvation of others?
One cannot escape predestination by appealing to God’s foreknowledge. Nor can one escape pure sovereign decision by appealing to foreknowledge.
For all is according to God’s good pleasure.
It's a good thing Blessed Augustine deferred to the Church when he realized that his theologoumenna were leading him into the pit of Satan. Because, by the same token, then God has predestined Judas to be Judas and Pharaoh to be Pharaoh and all the evil to be evil. And that is not the God of the Gospels.
Kosta, you are so inconsistent. IIRC, earlier in this thread you insisted that there was no such thing as Satan.
God did predestine Judas to be Judas.
Jesus said that He had chosen 12 and one of the 12 was a devil. He spoke that about Judas who would betray Him.
He already knew. Judas would not escape his predestination.
Maranatha, Jesus!!!
Not initially. In the beginning, in the very raw stage of our faith, we all go through spiritual pride, which is all about us. Mother Teresa of blessed memory was no different. It is only through her own dying that she lost any desire to serve her ambitions but to leave a legacy not of herself but that all the work she did was "of Him" and none of hers (as she stated in one ofher letters). In other words, she reached theosis: she ceased to exist so that one could only see God's work in her.
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.