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.
Well, since there's no such thing as "leading him into the pit of Satan," then maybe we could say, "leading him to the Grand Canyon." Big Hole. Desolate. Might work.
That also means, btw, that we have a non-entity bound by imaginary chains, tossed into a symbolic pit. Rev 20.
I can only assume, then, that angels too are imaginary creatures. :>)
No, that is a mischaracterization. The Hebrews did not believe Satan was a fallen angel but an obedient servant of God. Jews believe this to this day. The idea of Satan being a fallen angel is part of apocryphal Hebrew writings, and were accepted by apocalyptic Jews (including the Way). Such concepts as a fallen angel came from Persian influence on Judaism in the aftermath of the Babylonian captivity.
All references to Satan in the OT show him to be a servant of God. Inferences to Satan being the Phoenician king who though of himself as god, or of Babylonian morning star (which Jerome translated as "Lucifer," the shiny one) are not associated with Satan except through Christian teaching.
Christianity teaches that there is the Crafty One, the devil, the personification of evil, who out of envy fell from God's grace, and he is associated with every evil, including the god of Baal, Babylon's Morning Star, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. He represents all the evil, and whatever is evil becomes him, including us.
Don't listen to P-Marlowe. He likes to "twist" things a little because he thinks he is at work. :)
Sadducees certainly did not believe in angels, or afterlife. And they were in charge of the Temple.
But this does not say that God forced Judas to betray Christ. That was Judas' decision and God knew it all along. So the "predestination" was based on knowing what Judas will choose.
I know this is an old thread and many discussions have ensued, but back to commenting on the original article/question:
Why is the Pope saying the Catholic Church is the only true Church offensive? I expect that from the top leader of that church. If he didn’t believe that, I’d think he was a weak leader.
I may disagree with him, being a non-Catholic (or -yikes- being a weak PC Catholic), but I’m not going to be shocked or offended that a man who believe in his church thinks it’s the way to go.
Quibbling over the inconsequential....this was foretold hundreds of years before Judas was even born.
There was no way out. It was going to happen. Judas was going to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, and his abandoned place among the 12 was to be filled again by Matthias.
It was already foreplanned exactly how it would go down.
You should find it incredible that the overwhelming MAJORITY of Christians throughout history does not agree with your "so-called fact"
I guess that makes you feel special,part of the select and Immaculate ;)
I pray for you to have peace of mind!
Every now and then someone does come back to the subject at hand. Congratulations. :>)
This thread is not about the right of the pope to make any statement he wants. This thread is about the damage to ecumenism that his rejection of other churches has brought about.
The article also demonstrates that the Roman Catholic church has real difficulty with proving its case of apostolic succession. Read the 3 points underlined in the article.
Thanks.
“This thread is not about the right of the pope to make any statement he wants. This thread is about the damage to ecumenism that his rejection of other churches has brought about.”
That makes no sense; sorry. Anyone who expects him to muffle his belief in the face of “ecumenism” is foolish.
As I said, I’m not offended. I expect him to think and say that way. That can’t get in the way of “making nice-nice”.
It does make sense to me that he has damaged legitimate hopes for greater Christian Unity.
As the article points out, there is no provable claim of Roman Catholic primacy. They can’t even prove their own apostolic succession...or even the necessity of their interpretation of apostolic succession.
So, if the pope declares that Mary is a co-redemptrix with Jesus, and other Churches disagree with that, will that also be a legitimate reason to avoid Christian Unity....the very thing that Jesus Christ says He desires throughout the Gospel of John?
Should not the claims by which one avoids Christian Unity at least be valid claims?
If you deny your son the keys to the car because you say he is an alcoholic, how valid is that if he is not, if fact, an alcoholic?
Both terms are time-bound which is to say, terms that are sensible only from the perspective of an observer “in” time, i.e. a creature.
Or to put it another way, the words of God in Scripture are a revelation of God Who is timeless per se to mortal creatures who are each traveling a worldline (a path in space and time.)
Therefore whatever understanding of His words we obtain is in Him not in us:
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matt 13:10-13
For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. – Isaiah 55:8-11
Alpha and Omega (First Cause and Final Cause)
And the rule of physical, temporal cause/effect – cause precedes effect (which gives us our concept of time passing, by the way) – need not apply to God because He is the Creator, timeless (I AM) - First Cause (Alpha) and Final Cause (Omega.)
Even mathematically we can discern that time may be a plane and not a line (f-theory, Vafa, et al) such that past/present/future co-exist. IOW, a change at any point (e.g. future) is a change at all points (past, present, future.)
By contrast, the power of God is beyond our comprehension - all we can know of it is what He chooses to reveal to us.
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. – John 8:58
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. – Revelation 13:18
Wonderful essay, dear sister in Christ.
The above line jumped out at me. It suggests that God's decisions (cause) order (effect) things in any realm God chooses.
Again, we can only be in awe of God's good pleasure.
Well, despite that fact that the pain I have today is worse than after the foot surgery, I'd still say the MAIN task was keeping either foot out of my mouth.
Thanks for your prayers and thoughts.
That's gratuitously offensive and so we're done. Enjoy your rectitude, such as it is and what there is of it.
That's gratuitously offensive and so we're done. Enjoy your rectitude, such as it is and what there is of it.
I offered to stay home next year and hit my legs with hammers and file the skin off my feet. It would take less time and feel no worse.
Last year I did it with a 30+ lb pack. This year I went light. Today, being aware of how much pain the human body can take and not pass out, I'm working on my theology of Hell.
p.s. I can imagine all of the angels busting out in laughter when some profoundly logical person speaking to Christ in heaven says to Him "but it can't be that way, logic says..."
All things work together for good for those who love God (or words to that effect.)
I would say this shot of yours was in the gold. And this attitude is why I do not think of Purgatory as punitive or retributive but "therapeutic", as in physical therapy, inj which the purpose is through pain and discipline (exercise) to make one strong enough to fulfill the innate capacity to, whatever, lift heavy things or type or ....
God's punishment/discipline is instructive and strengthening and makes us desirous of an able to "enjoy His company". Or that's how I think of it. Whether the "punishment" is before or after we shuffle off the moral coil is another issue, but the purpose of divine chastening of the saints is for their good.
IT's ALL gift. THe blisters are a gift. The swelling around the shins is a gift. THe totally insane idea of MY actually walking to raise money for MS research is a gift. My having the ginger to complete the walk is a gift. The road to walk on is a gift. All is gift. This is why, when you can't think of what you want to say to God, "Thank you," is ALWAYS good, and why a name for our RC hocus Pocus in "Eucharist." And as the old versions of the Gloria said "We give thanks to Thee for thy great glory." We cannot call upon God unless He gives the calling to us; we cannot be humble unless He gives us the humility. All is a great ocean of gift.
I tend to duck the free-well v. predestination (and the rest of it) debate because it just all seems like a gift to me. I would only add that once He gives it to us to float downstream, He begins to give it to us to swim downstream.
Where's the fun in that?
Grumble.
I'm sorry for flying off the keyboard handle. I'll try to come up with something to blame it on when I feel better.
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.