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.
Did he say that to the priests? No. In fact he abolished the priesthood.
If you accept that this statement is in fact a declaration that the Catholic priest has been granted the power to keep God from forgiving your sins by retaining them in confession, then you are arguing that God created a power for child molesters to threaten children with literal and unreversible eternal damnation by simply retaining their sins unless and until they do something wicked and nasty with the man to whom this power has been granted.
You really think the Priest has that kind of power over the laity? The laity has obviously been told that this is the case. I suspect that the priests who have molested children have used this power for that purpose.
-A8
” I would be among the Mariners, but that wouldn’t make me one”
Right you are, except there were no other apostles mentioned in Paul’s salutations at the end of his letter. All the people mentioned are meeting at a house church in Rome.
How about just bowing your head and asking God to do it?
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. (Matthew 21:22 KJV)
Is God somehow prohibited from consecrating bread and wine because the person asking for it does not have the requisite apostolic authority or is not wearing the appropriate costume?
Maybe they were small “a” apostles and he was a big “A” apostle :>)
OOOOHHHH, the big hat! I want to wear the big hat!
There is no “priest” mentioned in the letter to the church at Corinth. One would think that if Paul was going to criticize the church for its abuse of the communion elements he would have addressed it to the “priest” in charge or at least have the courtesy of mentioning his name. Nope, looks like the people were serving themselves and Paul was just telling them the proper etiquette for serving. He doesn’t even tell them to wait for the “priest”.
Doesn't the big hat have a 666 on it? BTW, your post seems to have that number.
I posted quickly just to get it :>)
If I stand on my hands it says “999.”
You are failing to distinguish the two meanings of "priest" in English. Our Lord did abolish the hiereus priesthood of the Old Testament. But the words concerning the forgiveness and retention of sins was addressed to the Apostles whose office was continued in the episkopos and prebuteros priesthood of the Catholics and Orthodox of today.
If you accept that this statement is in fact a declaration that the Catholic priest has been granted the power to keep God from forgiving your sins by retaining them in confession, then you are arguing that God created a power for child molesters to threaten children with literal and unreversible eternal damnation by simply retaining their sins unless and until they do something wicked and nasty with the man to whom this power has been granted.
You really think the Priest has that kind of power over the laity? The laity has obviously been told that this is the case. I suspect that the priests who have molested children have used this power for that purpose.
I must say that I find this highly offensive and unworthy of Christian discourse. The vast majority of Catholic priest had nothing to do with child molestation and find it as disgusting as you. Nor does the fact that a very small minority of priest have abused their authority negate the Christ given authority of the Biblical office of presbuteros. Nearly all the Davidic kings, including David himself, abused their authority as king. Yet they were still true kings, God's anointed. If you are uncomfortable with the idea that a episkopos or presbuteros can retain sin then your beef is with our Lord Jesus Christ, not with the Church.
That sort of egalitarianism is completely foreign to the NT and the fathers.
-A8
I think you should learn what this means:
* 1 Sola gratia
* 2 Sola fide
* 3 Sola scriptura
* 4 Solus Christus
* 5 Soli Deo gloria
So God will not consecrate bread or wine unless the one requesting it has the requisite "power"?
That, my friend is Witchcraft.
The only "power" involved in consecrating the communion is the power of Christ. Christ is not conjured up at the whim of a child molesting priest. He is present in the lives of all true believers. We (you and me) are a royal priesthood. A priesthood of believers. Anyone can request that the sacrament be consecrated and God will consecrate it. Anyone can ask God for forgiveness of sins and God will grant it. Anyone can baptize another in the name of Jesus Christ and it will have the same effect as if it were done by one of the Apostles.
Why am I a Roman Catholic?
My mom was Catholic and my dad was Methodist, although he attended church with us on Sundays. I was raised in the 70’s and 80’s so didn’t really get much out of the church other than ‘Jesus is your friend’. I wasn’t a very religious person which allowed me to fall easily away as I grew up and left my parents home.
My brother also fell away. He became Baptist and still is. I experimented with the Methodist church but all I got there was a lot of singing and very little Scripture readings. My brother challenged me on a lot of my beliefs and so did the family of what would become my husband. I decided it was time for me to grow up and take responsibility for my own education.
I bought a bible and started reading. It didn’t make a lot of sense at first. I’m afraid the bible is not exactly a book you pick up and read from start to finish! As I stumbled along (all the time building my prayer life) I started to recognize the passages. They were so familiar! I had heard them my entire life every Sunday. I went back to the Catholic church and knew I’d come home. There were the Scriptures I had been reading. There was Jesus in the Eucharist. God was there for me! Right where He’d always been. The doctrines of the Church regarding abortion and birth control, etc., fit me like a glove. God had given me these gifts and I didn’t even recognize them at first.
I’ll never leave Him or His Church again. I am doing everything I can to give my kids a better faith education than I received as a child. My dad converted about 6 years ago and my husband joined the Church this past Easter. In case you were wondering, I never asked him to convert. I honestly didn’t think it would ever happen. I’m still shocked sometimes that he pursued this on his own and we are now a happy Catholic family! He just needed to decide to research on his own, too. I’m thrilled that he came to the same conclusion! Our family dynamics and prayer life have changed dramatically since we first married 12 years ago. All of this was worth the wait and the struggle!
With all of your recent posts, you almost always use the qualifier “child molesting” with “priest.” An obsession you have there.
No, but the offices of episkopos and presbuteros are mentioned in Acts, 1 Timothy and Titus.
Who do you have in mind? Don't you think your argument would have to depend on what is Biblical Christianity, or, better yet, what constitutes the Bible. Given that the mainline Protestant canon deviates from the Church canon, obviously your argument cannot be applied to the Church. Our Bibles are not the same.
Other sects/cults use additional "scripture" to justify their beliefs "biblically." Thus, Gnostics used additional "gospels" and LDS use the Book of Mormon in addition to the OT and NT. They will tell you that their Christianity is scripturally "sound." On what basis, other than your personal preference of what constitutes scriptures, can you say that they should "no longer be called 'Christian'?
No Protestant can with any certainty say that another Christian is not a "true" Christian. That is the problem with relativism which the Reformation brought in. There is no truth; truth is unknown and if truth is unknown, so is God. In Protestantism, no denomination believes it has true and fully revealed faith. Therefore no protestant "church" can hold to be the true Church of Christ.
The best you can do is find "core agreement." That is hardly enough. For at the bottom of the "core" belief all monotheists (Jews, Christians and Muslims) are "united" in one God! Under "core" belief, Mormons are Christians because they call Christ their Savior. Under "core" belief, mainline Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox Churches are one and the same, because we all agree that God is a simple Trinitarian Monad, and Christ is perfect God-Man (although it takes only to scratch the surface of these concepts to discover that Protestant Trinity and Christology are not the same as those of the Apostolic Church). Outside of those (on the surface) "core" beliefs we don't share anything else with Protestants/Baptists!
And, finally, the Protestants among themselves don't share more than "core" beliefs, all based on individual preference and personal interpretation of the a certain canon of personally chosen scriptures.
Merely because the RC considers itself under one Pope, does not mean that there is perfect unity within it. Similarly, the body of non-RC churches should not be seen as having disunity merely because they are in many denominations
It's not comparable. All Roman Catholics believe one and the same thing. There are no "core" Catholic beliefs they all share and then have a plethora of "other beliefs" they don't. Catholics in order to be Catholics by definition believe one and the same thing on all aspects of the Catholic faith. The same is true of the Eastern Orthodox. You can't be a Catholic/Orthodox "a little bit." It's an either or issue.
So, while our praxis may be influenced by our weaknesses and personal preferences, liberal or conservative leanings, our faith does not vary from person to person. Liberal Catholics still believe exactly the same thing the conservative Catholics believe. So, there is perfect unity in faith even if there is not always unity in praxis.
John Kerry cannot claim to be a Catholic and support infanticide (late term abortions), or abortions in general, and expect to be a Catholic. He is free to believe what he wills, but if those are his beliefs than he has excommunicated himself form the Church because there is no room for such abominations in the catholic and orthodox faith.
it is incorrect to speak of the "Protestant/Baptist world" as if it were a uniform entity
All heresy is the same, even if the devil is in the details. :) They are all united in their "core" denial of, and separation from the Apostolic Church.
The focus is not on the believer, but rather on God. Similarly, truth is not dependent upon mere individual interpretation, but rather upon the Spirit working within the individual, but tested against both scripture and other mature Christians
But never against the 2,000 year old cumulative knowledge and wisdom of the Church. You will go to "mature" Christians (mature by whose standards?), and rely on the nebulous working of the Spirit within (never mind that it is your word against mine), but will not trust the earliest Church Fathers who were the closest to the original Church and the Apostles!
Protestantism is a fortress religion. Everyone shuts himself in with the Spirit, real or imaginary, and distrusts everyone else.
“But the words concerning the forgiveness and retention of sins was addressed to the Apostles whose office was continued in the episkopos and prebuteros priesthood of the Catholics and Orthodox of today.”
By definition the office of Apostle ended with the last to have been an eye witness to the resurrection. It could not have been passed on. There is no evidence that the apostles ever used that “forgiveness and retention of sins” as Jesus did. John says if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse. He does not mention that the confession could be blocked by someone here deciding not to allow the promised forgiveness. We have access to the Father through Jesus, there is no earthly “gatekeeper”.
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection
In your Catholic pecking order a child molesting Priest is higher than the victims he molests. The child molesting priest has the "power" to consecrate the sacraments and to retain the sins of his victims. His victims are powerless.
You guys condemn egalitarianism as if, in the context of our relationship to God, it is a bad thing. No, the Catholic priesthood is all about power over the laity.
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.