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.
War is forced imposition of one will over another. It will never be pretty.
“Nothing just in war” did not answer the question about Winston Churchill. That required a yes or no response.
I would also disagree that there is nothing just in war. The victory of right over wrong by necessary force will always be just. Revelation 19 & 20 demonstrate that.
Why???
If you consider it mythological, then you cannot appeal to it as fact in a discussion. You need a different reason for preferring to eat plants over eating animals.
Not correct. Please note that Esau was not well written about in scripture.
Hbr 12:16-17 Lest there [be] any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
The word in Romans 9 is "miseo" which means to hate. It is used in such places as:
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
As you can see, these sentences would make no sense if the word was "loved less".
No, you said:
“I don’t consider it a condemnation because the Shepherd shears the sheep and even eats some of them.”
With the capitalization of Shepherd in a post in a Catholic / Christian thread that has reached 6500 posts, one would assume the reference was to the Good Shepherd. If one is not referencing Jesus Christ, the analogy gets a tad misty. Could you explain about eating versus shearing a little further please?
The Churchill example is an interesting one. If England were a unilateral invader of a peaceful Germany, then not telling the villagers is definitely an immoral and unjust act. Defending one’s country against the V2 rocket attacks and the Lufwaffe air raids is moral and just.
I’m going to split it down the middle. I believe that he was moral and just in not telling villagers that England was going to bomb them after breaking the code. The weeklong firebombing of Dresden was immoral and unjust and an unconscionable act.
No, I don’t find it logical; it is neat, though.
I believe that God knows all, including the names of the saved and the lost. God knows all. I suppose that that means perfect foreknowledge.
There are sins of commission and sins of omission.
The parable of the talents is about the sin of omission. Otherwise it means nothing.
Kneemail.
Whooo.
Nice little essay.
I’ll defer the cornflakes for the moment if I may; to my understanding Calvin would not have agreed with the statement since Mary would have been predestined to walk through the script.
I’m glad that you brought up the burning bush story; remember that when Moses received the tablets and went back down the mountain, the Israelites hacked him off to the point where he threw down the tablets and broke them and had to go sheepishly (!) back to God for another copy.
Doesn’t sound like a nice neat predestination thing!!!
Back to the corn flakes; I do agree with the irrestibility theory, I think that God nudges people all the time one way or another. But I think that the nudge is normally more subtle than the Saul experience. People have turned down angels, I’m sure. I just might eat the corn flakes, I just might.
Rom 9:
As it is written: “I loved Jacob but hated Esau.”
14
What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!
15
For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.”
NAB footnotes gives this:
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, we have the appeal to the Semitic over the Greek.
Let us also contrast Luke 14:
“If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
with the footnote: Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple’s family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62).
Matt 10:
37
“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
As we can see, it’s not about hate.
Heb 6:
4
For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift 2 and shared in the holy Spirit
5
and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 3
6
and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves 4 and holding him up to contempt.
7
Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God.
8
But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned.
9
But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better things related to salvation, even though we speak in this way.
10
For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones.
If you fall into apostacy, you might never ever be able to repent. But if you demonstrated your love for Him by serving the Holy Ones, He will not overlook your work. Even St. Paul understands that works are necessary in the judgement of God.
The shearing/eating point is that a shepherd doesn't just shear sheep (noninjurious), but also consumes some of them (injurious.)
Job comes to mind.
Jesus, too, of course.
And everyone who has taken up their cross to follow Him. Crosses are instruments of death.
If God knows all of the saved and all of the damned, and if God’s foreknowledge is perfect, then those lost by means of blaspheming the Holy Spirit are already known, and there is nothing they can do to change it.
The Lord did not eat Job. To the contrary, Job was tested and he endured to the end, as all of us are to do.
Job 42:
9
Then Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, went and did as the LORD had commanded them. And the LORD accepted the intercession of Job.
10
Also, the LORD restored the prosperity of Job, after he had prayed for his friends; the LORD even gave to Job twice as much as he had before.
11
Then all his brethren and his sisters came to him, and all his former acquaintances, and they dined with him in his house. They condoled with him and comforted him for all the evil which the LORD had brought upon him; and each one gave him a piece of money and a gold ring.
12
Thus the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his earlier ones. For he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.
13
And he had seven sons and three daughters,
14
of whom he called the first Jemimah, the second Keziah, and the third Keren-happuch.
15
In all the land no other women were as beautiful as the daughters of Job; and their father gave them an inheritance among their brethren.
16
After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; and he saw his children, his grandchildren, and even his great-grandchildren.
17
Then Job died, old and full of years.
Sounds like quite an earthly reward. Is there anyone else that the Shepherd has eaten?
You’re ducking the question again.
Obviously, I would think, you realize the metaphor, don't you? The word in parentheses was (injurious.) Did you see it?
All of Job's children were slain, he was viciously and sickeningly abused in his flesh.
I would say that Job was definitely injured.
The same with Jesus. The same with martyrs.
I’m not trying to duck any question. If you’ve asked on, then I missed it.
What is your question?
If one of the elect blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, would they then lose their election and be condemned to hell?
Eating is not injuring. It does not work.
The same as physical death versus spiritual death. God killing somebody does not equate to condemning them to hell.
Jesus on the other hands was spiritually slain, because of the spiritual aspect of the Crucifixion. Men have been crucified physically, yet not spiritually. The connections you are speaking to here seem a little loose.
I thought I answered that in #6532.
But to add to that answer:
God would have already known that they had blasphemed the HS, so they wouldn’t have been one of the elect.
Yes, it does work.
It works first because it’s the way I defined the “eat” metaphor I was using.
It works also because “to eat” is “to consume.” That speaks of a serious trial.
But, whatever....the point has to do with God’s knowing who are the damned and who are the saved. He already knows. He created this world, and in that act, every single person’s destiny was fixed.
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.