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.
In a way of looking at it, many Protestant churches take a piece of Catholicism and expand it into a whole.
You should look at all the Councils, not just one.
I believe that this has been touched on before: Protestants want to say that every verse that supports their particular belief is of equal value and simply disregard the rest. Duelling verses, I call it.
If you don’t believe that every word from the mouth of the Lord is more important than any word from the mouth or pen of a man, then what kind of Christian do you profess to be?
Context, context, context.
John 7:
1 After this, Jesus moved about within Galilee; but he did not wish to travel in Judea, because the Jews were trying to kill him.
2
But the Jewish feast of Tabernacles was near.
3
So his brothers 2 said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.
4
No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.”
5
For his brothers did not believe in him.
6
3 So Jesus said to them, “My time is not yet here, but the time is always right for you.
7
The world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that its works are evil.
8
You go up to the feast. I am not going up 4 to this feast, because my time has not yet been fulfilled.”
9
After he had said this, he stayed on in Galilee.
10
But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but (as it were) in secret.
11
The Jews were looking for him at the feast and saying, “Where is he?”
12
And there was considerable murmuring about him in the crowds. Some said, “He is a good man,” (while) others said, “No; on the contrary, he misleads the crowd.”
13
Still, no one spoke openly about him because they were afraid of the Jews.
The footnotes from the NAB:
1 [John 7-8] These chapters contain events about the feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth, Ingathering: Exodus 23:16; Tents, Booths: Deut 16:13-16), with its symbols of booths (originally built to shelter harvesters), rain (water from Siloam poured on the temple altar), and lights (illumination of the four torches in the Court of the Women). They continue the theme of the replacement of feasts (Passover, John 2:13; 6:4; Hanukkah, John 10:22; Pentecost, John 5:1), here accomplished by Jesus as the Living Water. These chapters comprise seven miscellaneous controversies and dialogues. There is a literary inclusion with Jesus in hiding in John 7:4, 10; 8:59. There are frequent references to attempts on his life: John 7:1, 13, 19, 25, 30, 32, 44; 8:37, 40, 59.
2 [3] Brothers: these relatives (cf John 2:12 and see the note on Mark 6:3) are never portrayed as disciples until after the resurrection (Acts 1:14). Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 give the names of four of them. Jesus has already performed works/signs in Judea; cf John 2:23; 3:2; 4:45; 5:8.
3 [6] Time: the Greek word means “opportune time,” here a synonym for Jesus’ “hour” (see the note on John 2:4), his death and resurrection. In the wordplay, any time is suitable for Jesus’ brothers, because they are not dependent on God’s will.
4 [8] I am not going up: an early attested reading “not yet” seems a correction, since Jesus in the story does go up to the feast. “Go up,” in a play on words, refers not only to going up to Jerusalem but also to exaltation at the cross, resurrection, and ascension; cf John 3:14; 6:62; 20:17.
Context: Jesus is telling the Apostles that he isn’t going to go because the Jews will kill him. He goes anyway, in secret. The Jews are looking for him but don’t see him there BECAUSE the Apostles obviously tell them that He isn’t there.
When He starts teaching in the middle of the feast, there isn’t the chance to kill Him because He is in the middle of the crowd. That line is for the Apostles.
Further, to put it with some previous Scripture that has been mentioned, those who are self indulgent and sin are not going to want to hear His message. The Apostles already knew this and that makes this misdirection work so well.
The boys have an
Whatever the “vagaries within the EO,” this one doesn’t arise:
Which God died and which God killed Him?
Ooopps, I MUST pay more attention whilst proofreading...
I’d be interested in following the line of: God the Father is superior to God the Son; He Created Him, killed Him off, and then reCreated Him.
Seems that the Reformed are a little closer to the LDS folks than they’d like to admit. :)
I’m confused.
Is 6,666 bad?
No, 666 is bad..
:)
Are you saying Jesus is not “The Lamb of God?”
Were Lambs sacrificed at Passover or were they not?
This is sort of a silly argument, though. He truly is the Lamb of God, and nothing anyone can say will change the scripture or change that fact.
So, that clears it up for 7,666, too, doesn’t it?
:>)
We have most certainly have had this discussion before. If you recall, I gave you a number of examples where judgment is to heaven OR hell. While a few passages could be taken to mean "rewards" judgment, such as the parable of the talents, the majority of Jesus's parables speak of an either heaven/hell judgment, such as the Wedding Feast. There will be no "gnashing of teeth" as a reward!
The simple fact remains that this idea really doesn't follow the Scriptures. Men are judged based on how they utilize the graces from God. No, they don't earn anything, because NO ONE can say "look what I done by myself". But it is very clear that we are to obey commandments and we are subsequently judged FOR HEAVEN OR HELL based on our following God's will.
For example:
Strive to enter in at the narrow gate; (ouch, that hurts the "God does everything" idea, doesn't it?) for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able. When once the husband of the house is risen up and shall have shut the door, and ye begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not from where ye are, then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say unto you, I know you not from where ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity. In that place shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out. And [others] shall come from the east and [from] the west and from the north and [from] the south and shall sit [at the table] in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. Luke 13:24-30
I actually remember from before that in expressing it, you had the most optimistic views in this area amongst your like minded brethren. :)
Nyuk, nyuk, I'm just a happy-go-lucky guy!
Regards
We are not judged??? Where does the Bible say that Christians will not be judged after they die? Perhaps the confusion over the meaning of "judge". Often, the Bible uses the concept that judgment is something that God gives to the evil, like God's wrath (rather than God weighing our works, good and bad, and deciding what to do, if I can make a human analogy). We will be subject to scrutiny based on what we do, but we will not receive God's judgment (wrath might be a better word to press forward my meaning) while in Christ.
For although I have nothing on my conscience, yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judges me is the Lord. 1 Cor 4:4
And dost thou think this, O man, that judgest those who do such things and [doest the same], that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Romans 2:3
So speak ye and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment without mercy shall be done unto the one that has showed no mercy; and mercy boasts against judgment. James 2:12-13
For we know [who] he [is] that has said, Vengeance [belongs] to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Hebrews 10:30-31
Clearly, WE WILL be scrutinized based on what we have done. Those found unworthy will be cast out.
I think the James verse gives a good indication of what I mention above. Those in Christ will be granted mercy - they will be judged with mercy, as opposed to those who are evil. We will not have to be perfect, as God will grant mercy - and Christ intercedes for us. But those NOT in Christ, even if they have ONCE received Christ in the past, will not be given mercy. The Bible makes that clear in a number of places.
Regards
That is very kind of you. Likewise.
Well, I'm glad that you admit the world hates our Lord as much as you tried to spin this one. Here are some others:
Joh 15:18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
I have looked at a lot of the Councils (not all). The older they are, the better they are.
The Holy Spirit—as regards His existence—proceeds (originates) eternally from the Father (St. Gregory Palamas [13th century], Philokalia), and not from the Son. To say that he proceeds from Them is to imply double origin.
The Apostle states:
"the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me." [St. John 15:26]
St. John of Damascus (8th century desert father) states:
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and resteth in the Son...proceeding from the Father and communicated through the Son.
(We believe) in one Father, the beginning, and cause of all: begotten of no one: without cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator of all: but Father of one only by nature, His Only-begotten Son and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Producer of the most Holy Spirit. [Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, Chapter VIII]
Well, I thought you believed that Christ died for your sins. Didn't He die for all of them?
Yes we will all stand before the judgment seat but our Judge is our Lord Jesus. Judgment by George Eldon Ladd
Alexander Kalimoros wrote in his 9in)famous "River of Fire" in the 1970's the following observation:
I think you are witnessing that his assessment was right on target.
You are mistaken on two accounts: first, the "current" EOC is the past EOC and the future EOC, some short-term heretics in it notwithstanding.
Second, my God does not deceive.
You noticed that too? :)
I really do believe that if you stuck four Protestants in a room, you guys would come up with 5 different religions
That's on Tuesday. By Friday they will have at least a dozen...
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.