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.
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. - Revelation 5:6
True. :) There is no evidence whatsoever, after 40 years of intensive digging by Israeli and other archaeologists, of any trace of Hebrew presence in the Sinai in the time alleged in the Bible. There is plenty of evidence of Egyptian presence there in the same time period.
Don't forget: the Bible claims close to a million people (over 600,000 men) if I am not mistaken. Such large tribes would leave unmistaken evidence of their presence.
Egyptian records, likewise, make no mention of this mass exodus. And Rhamses' son, who occupied Canaan shortly after Exodus, does not take any revenge on the nearby Israelites. Surely, he would have exacted some kind of vengeance on the Israelites if they had been instrumental in brining plagues and drowning his father's army.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Hebrews ever lived in Egypt in those days. If they did, it was in small groups and if any exodus occurred it was not masssive, but more like trickling.
The plagues, while they may have a scientific explanation, are still a stretch. And the idea that God's Spirit would go around smiting firstborn, animals included, is just as un-Christian as it gets.
In other words, sadly, everything seems to point to a popular myth. And popular myths are best tolerated because they play an important cohesive and personality role in many cultures.
First the Greek text says "he was raised" (hegenertai), passive tense. Second, what scriptures is he talking about?
Is it that Paul didn't say that, or that you don't believe Paul?
But your statement that the Spirit proceeds from both of Them does engage the "hot button" issue on origin.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. - John 16:7
Of course! The Spirit "resteth in the Son" (St. John of Damascus)
Christ died because and for our sins. He was the ransom with which we were set free. I do not believe that God killed Him to satisfy His wounded pride.
Good night. It's late here.
Thanks but this doesn't apply to the question of God dying.
And, in time, it still leaves the question: What happened to the long view that God is without beginning and without end and everlasting? God being outside time does not mean God dies in time; that God is mortal rather than immortal.
I cannot see how God can kill God without there being two Gods and without contradicting the basic tenets we hold about God.
thanks very much for your reply...
“Why did Christ die on the cross? What purpose did it serve?”
Check out my tagline.
This is Orthodox doctrine and the Catholics (and some Protestants) are moving in this direction. The atonement is no longer a price that is paid for our sins. Instead, it is nothing more than Christ showing us the way we should live. Man has been set free from death (because of Christ) and can now walk in a newness of life. After all, he has the will to do it.
I'm not sure what Orthodox scholars had to say on this 2,000 years ago, but it was certainly never the teaching of the early western fathers.
It’s not the world. It’s only those individuals who are more attracted to sin than to God.
“I’m not sure what Orthodox scholars had to say on this 2,000 years ago, but it was certainly never the teaching of the early western fathers.”
From +John Chrysostomos, 4th/5th century:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-easter.html
By the way, HD, Orthodox theology on the Crucifixion and Death of Christ isn’t quite so simple as you portray it.
Theologically, there are only Catholics and all the varying and expanding numbers of denominations. We don’t have denominations. There are Catholics and there are splitters and quitters.
And, from the arguments of the Reformed here, I can only come to the conclusion that the only Scripture that is infallible is the Scripture that backs one’s argument. The Scripture that refutes it is ignored completely and not even acknowledged in postings.
You might expand your explanation to: From my perspective (today, for a limited time only) there’s only synergism and monergism. That would be more accurate since the expectation is that Protestants can change their views at the drop of a hat because theology is of the whim of the individual. The individual, and not God.
Show me a Canon that addresses Indulgences.
The Council of Orange says that baptism confers the grace of God upon the individual and that the Holy Spirit works in the individual after that point. You guys say that the Holy Spirit ambushes the individual and that baptism results after that effect. Not Scriptural, is it?
With this you acknowledge that the Passover Lamb was interecessory. And it is a fact that the Lamb offered as a guilt offering was also intercessory.
He interceded for us through His shed blood. And the blood of the Passover Lamb was on the doorpost & lintel as intercession.
Those who feast on the sacrifice participate in the sacrifice. They are feasting on the intercession & they proclaim HIS DEATH until he comes.
These are basic things.
Even in communion, the great thanksgiving is for the intercession. It is not something that can be easily missed.
I wouldn’t call the Beatitudes “nothing more than Christ showing us the way we should live.”
Yes, and as long as I ask for forgiveness of my sins, His blood covers them. Certainly not my future sins! How can I ask for forgiveness of something I have not yet done?
Since Christ died for ALL men, EVERY ONE OF THEM, yet, all men aren't saved, what determines who goes to heaven and who doesn't? Repentance. Once I repent of sin because of God's grace, I am forgiven. Until that point, I am not forgiven. Christ expiation is only effective for those who ask for it. Otherwise, you imply that Christ's death was not as effective as Adam's first sin. As Romans 5 states, Christ's death was MORE EFFECTIVE than Adam's sin. Adam's sin universally effected mankind. Thus, Christ's death is expiation for ALL men who turn to Him in repentance. His expiation is freely offered to all men, but only conditionally given, based on a faith that includes repentance.
Regards
Everyone is attacted to sin-even Adam. What makes one person attracted more to sin than God?
That’s why we must be baptized.
Everyone is attracted to sin; no denying it. Yet, with the grace of God, we are also attracted to Him. Our life is spent between those forces; with the grace of God, we can choose holiness. But we don’t have to.
Kolo: Check out my tagline
It says it all.
Amen, brothers all.
Who paid the wages for your sins?
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.