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.
What other things do the non believers do?
And would you please explain to me the difference between non believer and non elect.
I have asked and asked and have not gotten an answer that I can understand about how God chastens an elect here on Earth.
Suppose that you summarize the difference between the outgoing and inward callings? I’m finding it tough sledding.
What other things? What are you talking about? If someone does the will of God, then he does. If not, then your failed philosophy of Calvinism kicks in and he does not.
Are we looking at the OT through OT eyes? Not through Gospel eyes? Oh boy. I thought that Jesus came to fulfill the Law.
The footnotes of my RSV reflect the same:
Regarding Romans 12:19... “The vindication of justice is God’s prerogative, not ours (Dt.32.35). We are neither wise enough nor good enough to punish our enemies justly.”
Regarding Romans 12:20... “To heap burning coals..., is to make the enemy feel ashamed by meeting his evil with good (Pr.25.21-22).”
Regarding Proverbs 25:21-22... “Heap coals of fire, i.e. torture is less effective than mercy, or the best way to take vengeance on one’s enemy is to be merciful to him (Rom.12.20; Mt.5.44-45).”
The interpretation I’ve been using here is from a book by David Dale entitled “Upon This Rock” (not to be confused with other titles of the same name). Unfortunately, I don’t have it handy as I mailed it to my grandfather. In fact, that’s how I ended up with a copy of “Manual of Reformed Doctrine” by Louis Berkhof, B.D.; we swapped. It’s probably anybody’s guess as to who got the better deal. :)
If a person assumes themselves to be a member of the elect, as some tend to do, then perhaps it's only "natural" to also assume that the enemy is reprobate. In which case, something reminiscent of fire and brimstone might seem like a "perfect" solution.
From the website of the Patriarchate.
“More than 350 years have elapsed since the first publication of the so-called «Lucarian Confession». Eminent historians, theologians and researchers have tried to clarify whether Lucaris was the actual author of the «Confession» attributed to him by the Calvinists. The Patriarch himself verbally denied it on several occasions and proclaimed his Orthodox faith with his attitude and in his letters. To the end, however, Cyril did not disavow the «Confession» in writing. Successive Synods of the Orthodox Church have condemned the «Confession» as heretical and alien to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers.”
Protestant relatives of mine have actually claimed the Heretics of the early church period in a desperate attempt to prove the Church wrong. Be very careful how you justify the false doctrines of the lawyer Calvin.
It's amusing how much you seem to be irritated by me, PM. You have no idea how much joy it gives me. Please continue with your snippets. :)
No one propsed censorship. The vomit was spilled and needed to be cleaned up. The Council of Jerusalem did just that. The Orthodox Church never stopped being Catholic and Apostolic simply because among its hierarchs there were some who were preaching devil's theology.
But then you can't murder him as he was already murdered
I never propsed murdeirng him. I have no control over his fate. I wasn't there. But those who sell their soul to the devil, as he did, have no life in them anyway, so I suppose the unrepentant heretic did not lose anything he didn't lose already.
I need to make sure I’m understanding what you mean here.
Are you saying God killed Christ?
If not, I’m sorry, I’m still not sure how your reply relates to my post.
I didn't think you believed in the devil.
So Calvinists have sold their souls to a devil you don't believe in, huh?
The Protestant mindset is founded on such presumptiveness. That's where it's appeal is: it elevates the ego, it nourishes self-rigtheousness, it sanctifies the sinner. It is tailor-made to human egotism, to the love of oneself; it is flattering that an ordinary person can now consider himself a "saint" with a "mind of Christ" and an "indwelling spirit." It is boastful and prideful and elitist to consider oneself the "elect."
It is truly a miracle that Protestant Reformation did not obliterate Christianity, but ended being self-limited because it is so close to human nature and so easy to embrace. It consumed certain number of people and then stopped. But that's been the case ever since Christ left. What we have now are only regurgitated heresies of the past.
Not when they actually have power.
Did any man possess that power?
The justification of murder by those claiming to be "true Christians" always serves as a good reminder of how lost they are.
Kosta have you, as an adult, acknowledged to GOD your sinful nature and asked JESUS to save you?
Obviously so. They crucified Him.
You, then, really are saying God killed Christ?
Did they kill him?
Did they have the power to take his life?
Could mere nails in the hands of sinful men kill the Incarnate God?
Think about your answer.
The wages of sin is death. Christ paid the price. He took upon himself the judgment of God for our sins.
Who executed that judgment? The Romans? The Jews? Or God Almighty?
The ancient Jews don't believe in the devil, PM. The idea of the devil is a latter-day occurrence in Judaism, influenced by Zoroastrianism and accepted by apocalyptic Jewish groups. The NT references to the devil come from "Apocrypha" which you Protestants reject.
I have unanswered questions regarding the devil. I think there is one in every one of us.
I see where you’re trying to go, but the contortion to get thiere is just so wrong.
“For God so loved the world that he killed his only begotten son.” ?
Honestly, doesn’t this sound like an atheist’s view?
Jesus went willingly to His Death.
And they killed Him.
That He could have done otherwise does not change this fact. Nor make His death suicide, nor make God the Father His Killer.
Are you in a judging mood tonight?
D-fendr, Protestant theology does teach that God demanded a sacrifice of divine nature to satisfy the "offended" divine pride! Bulls and rams couldn't come close. A human would, but not just any human—a perfect human! God kills God to satisfy His divine justice. Protestantism 101.
Imagine how important we must be if we can offend the almighty God!
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.