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.
Kosta: "That's a novel concept for our Protestant friends! But they will come back and say something profound like "if that's true, then God's not in control...there was no propitiation..." or an even deeper one "our sins killed Him." LOL!"
Ummm ...... no. :) We would say something profound like Jesus went willingly to His death and Jesus was God. Jesus came only to do the will of the Father, so God was in control the whole time.
The Old Testament laid out the attempts and failings of man to live as God would have us live. The gospel laid out the ministry of Christ. Paul laid out the doctrine for us. Revelation tells us the end. It’s all connected.
Yes, I was called, but quietly, with a nudge here and a nudge there. God let me have a taste of discomfort (!), but for the most part, He guided me gently and steadily. And I have been rewarded far beyond my deserving. That is yet another reason that I believe so strongly. I don’t know how good a Job I’d make, but I pray that I never have to find out.
Yes, I couldn't have said it better. I wish I could remember to do as you have said more often - it is easy to place God in "second place" as life goes by. Posts such as yours helps.
Regards
Zwingli was the leader of the German speaking Swiss Reformation; the most liberal of all the Reformation leaders. From 1523 to 1525, he gradually converted from being a Catholic priest into a Protestant; in January 1525, his dispute with Grebel and Manz led to a break between Zwingli and the Brethren.
I am in error in citing Wesley and not Knox as the founder of the Presbyterians and offer my apologies. You are of course correct in that matter.
If you had the complete Bible, it is specifically mentioned. With the hacked up abridged Bible, it has equal Scriptural support as does the theology of the Trinity.
The Bible wasn’t amassed by Jewish scholars. It was amassed by the Church. Are you a Jew or a Christian?
I'm not sure, wmfights. I imagine Purgatory is similar or analogous to purgation here, but even more intensive because THEY have SEEN God. There must be some sort of joy involved mixed with regret that they are not able to join God immediately - "if only I had been more loving" I suppose they'd say. What do we do to be purged, to become more virtuous, to become "one-minded"? I would imagine that happens in Purgatory.
Regards
Good link. Thanks. Unfortunately, the calvinist methodists died out.
They would have been a good balance to our excesses.
Paul. A Christian. A man. Not God.
Man does not live on bread alone but on every word from the mouth of God. Paul is not God. When you elevate Paul’s words above those of Jesus, you are elevating Paul above God. Idolatry.
I was wrong in identifying Wesley instead of Knox.
Apologies.
Known to be fallacious? By Protestants, no doubt. A number of Fathers accepted the Septuagint as inspired by God and 2 Maccabees was part of that. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Church have accepted it for at least 1700 years. You should have said "it is my OPINION that 2 Maccabees is fallacious", perhaps also giving your reasons why you think that, rather than your proclamation that is at odds with a vast majority of Christianity.
Regards
Why should men repent if the non elect will go to hell? Under Reformed theology, they will go to hell regardless if they believe or not; they will go to hell regardless if they repent or not.
There is fundamental illogic with the Reformed thought. If all of men’s efforts are worth nothing, why should they do anything? If one views Scripture through that prism, then anything one does is mechanical and means nothing.
I disagree that God does NOT give all men the ABILITY to repent. We believe that God gives SUFFICIENT graces to all men, sufficient in of themselves to bring a man to repentance. However, a MAN must ALSO WANT to repent. Otherwise, it is not HIS repentance.
Again, we are back to "who is judged, God or man?" If God provides only some men with sufficient grace to repent, then it is GOD who would be judged, because that man could then say "you didn't give me the ability to repent, so HOW could I?" Regards
The point about the Jewish scholars is that they are the ones who’ve dated 2 Mac in the latter part of the 1st century BC. That means it’s at least a hundred years removed from the events, nearly at the time of Christ, and pharisaical in nature.
There are a variety of ways to look at 2 Mac. First, it wasn’t accepted as scripture and incorporated into the Masoretic Text. Second, it is not cited in any of the works of any apostle.
I would not use the words “amassed by the Church,” although I don’t have any heartburn with that characterization. I would say that the church testified to the historic origin of scripture. With the OT it simply testified to the body of scripture accepted by Jesus & the Apostles. With the NT, it testified to the apostolic underpinnings of each of the NT books. Once their historical mission was completed, they subordinated themselves to the preserved message of the Apostles.
Well, I guess you had to be there - it was said in an attempt to trip me up...
Regards
It really depends on the concept of the elect.
If the elect means those who have been baptized, have received the Sacraments on a regular basis, who believe in God, who act according to His instructions, and who strive to imitate Christ (poorly of course), then yes I do.
If the elect means all men except those who have rejected Christ, then yes I do. If the elect is all men, who have all been offered the Grace of God, and have reached out for it, then yes I do.
If the elect means an exclusive club that you are entered into before you were even born, with little radio voices telling you things, preprogrammed behaviour that means nothing anyway, and everlasting heartburn, then no I don’t.
Indulgences are not wrong. They were not wrong, they are not wrong, they will always be not wrong. The manner of administration and the reasons for granting them were corrupt and were dealt with. Now the timeliness is of concern, certainly, and I think that a follow up nasty email to BXVI after the first one that we sent him is called for. :)
Yes, the Bible is all connected. The Law and the Gospel are connected by Jesus Christ. I would be careful, though, about saying "Paul laid out the doctrine". That would imply that Jesus didn't lay out any doctrine. He most certainly did. And James does a very good job of laying it out. The Sermon on the Mount and James are very closely related.
Regards
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle4.htm The books are expressly stated by Gregory the Great as apocryphal, who was Pope of Rome (Morals. Lib. XIX. c. 16.) Eusebius says the same (Lib. De Temp.), as does Richard of S. Victor. (Except. Lib. II. c. 9.) and Occam (3 Part.Dial. Tract.. I. Lib. III c. 16) Will worship is seen in 2 Maccabees 12, where Judas Maccabees is praised for sacrificing to the dead, something God never commanded (See Leviticus 101-3). Judas is said to have been slain in 152 during the reign of Seleucide in Mac. 9:3; but 2 Mac. 1:10 he writes a letter to Aristobulus in the year 188, 36 years after his death (I wish I could do that!) So much more can be added, but I will add one more. Within the 2 Maccabean books, Antiochus is said to have died 3 different ways and in two different geographical locations. (See 1 Macc. 6:18, 16; 2 Macc. 1:16; 2 Macc 9, etc.) Josephus was not careful.
How sinful did man become after the fall? Was it totally sick or just partially sick?
Did he have ebola or did he have a cold?
You bring up some interesting points. I’ll do my best to address them.
Luther removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, and contradicted his own developing heresies, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the “Reformers” decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent4), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.
Now we have to back up a bit: after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The “Council of Jamnia” (also called “Jabneh” or “Javneh”) is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. I repeat: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, “council” consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees’ vision of “Jewry” was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that “Nazarenes” (i.e., “Christians”, who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel’s Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila — but one without the ancient Septuagint’s language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book “had” to have been written in Hebrew to be “Biblical” wasn’t the issue.
Moving the story along: in other words, the Protestant “Reformers” decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead — the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the “Nazarenes” of stealing Jesus’ body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai’s successor, Gamaliel, who forced the “Nazarenes” out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the “Prayer of Eighteen Petitions,” the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being “For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.”)
And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the “Roman Church” that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I’ve actually read at “Messianic” websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn’t get news of the Council of Jamnia’s decisions still use those “extra” 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).
By the way, “Masoretic texts” refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn’t refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language.
Relying on the “Bible alone” is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ’s message. While Scripture is “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. It is the Church that is the “pillar and ground of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)! Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way. It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.
Tobit 12:15
I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One. [see Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 below]
2 Maccabees 7:29
[A mother speaking to her son:] Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God’s mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. [see Hebrews 11:35 below]
2 Maccabees 12:44
For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. [see 1 Corinthians 15:29 below]
2 Maccabees 15:14
And Onias spoke, saying, “This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah [bodily dead], the prophet of God.”
1 Corinthians 15:29
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [see 2 Maccabees 12:44 above]
Hebrews 11:35
Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection. [see 2 Maccabees 7:29 above]
Revelation 1:4
...Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne. [see Tobit 12:15 above]
Revelation 8:3-4
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. [see Tobit 12:15 above]
I trust that this is sufficient answer. If not, well, let us reason further together.
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.