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.
Have you ever read Machiavelli?
AMEN! What a profound and comforting truth. Fear has no hold over those who are His.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" -- Romans 8:35
That's a works-based salvation which Scripture denies as the basis for our salvation.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" -- Ephesians 1:4
Chosen not because we are holy and without blame; but chosen in order that we be made holy and without blame by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
It's the Biblical distinction upon which the Reformation was waged. God's strength and purpose, not man's; Christ's justification and not our own.
Who? Whitefield? We like Whitefield....
(It's a letter all of us recalcitrant Calvinists would write to you.) 8~)
It’s so amazing and so consistent and so accurate that there are thousands upon thousands of different interpretations with more being generated every day.
God commands prayer, even on things that are already lead pipe cinches. The Lord's Prayer is full of these. For example, we are to pray that God will not lead us into temptation, yet scripture SPECIFICALLY tells us that God does not tempt. Is therefore that part of the Lord's Prayer a waste? Of course not. Same thing here.
If Paul hopes for his own salvation, it must mean that he wasn’t sure of it. Rom 8:24-25
LOL! No. Paul is distinguishing between salvation at point of belief and salvation at entry into Heaven. The completion of salvation is what he is speaking of here. It has nothing to do with certainty, it has to do with time. Just 10 verses earlier he says:
Rom 8:15-16 : 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
Past tense. Done deal. In fact, I'm sure you know that my side uses Paul as a primary source for salvational assurance. It is everywhere in his writings. I presume it is one of the big reasons why some Apostolics around here do not like Paul and think that his theology is wrong. :) Do you remember all the "high-five" posts that you and Kosta (and others) have traded on this thread? I mean the ones in which you called us "Paulines" and said that we disagree with the Gospels because we think that Paul's teachings are sound? I read them all.
He definitely wasn’t sure about his own salvation in Phil. 3:11-14
That's not correct. Paul was encouraging us to not become slackers during the race we run during life. He was saying that he hadn't reached the final salvation yet, because he was still alive and God had more for him to do. Perseverance was important to Paul and we agree with him. But Paul never taught a (comparatively) works-based salvation model. Paul infamously taught that salvation was by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8-9, et. al). And, he taught assurance in many places, such as:
2 Tim 4:6-8 : 6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race , I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
Paul was absolutely certain of his salvation, as fellow Reformers are today. :) Paul also said this:
2 Tim 1:12 : That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
Paul doesn't "wish", he is convinced. He KNOWS.
One might even say zillions, but those who'd claim it really should know better.
Do pacifists run away? I thought that they just turned the other cheek. :)
I try not to think of us as Machiavellian. We are just one big happy Catholic family encouraging all of our prodigal Protestant brethren to give up the spiritual partying and c’mon back home. :)
Apparently some of us believe that God has abandoned a portion of humanity forever.
Us all, or us only?
Once again you use Pauline verses over Christ’s. Christ is inclusivist, with only those refusing Him going to Hell. Paul is exclusivist, with only those picked out of the jar going to Heaven.
We are indeed far apart, the Christians and the Paulines.
Your Care Bear God ministers only to the elect and chauffeurs them to Heaven. The wrath that you point to doesn’t appear to apply to them.
Paul’s eyes were blinded by God, not opened, on the road to Damascus. Our eyes are opened by the infusion of the Holy Spirit at our baptism in which our parents, or ourselves if we have reached the age of reason, invite the Holy Spirit in.
Pauline exclusivism versus Christian inclusivism.
That is not what we are saying.
We think so highly of Paul that he is considered the second greatest apostle after Peter. The Church that I grew up in and attended school in was called Sts. Peter and Paul. We have no issue with Paul; to the contrary we regard him very very highly.
We think that Calvinism is a dark and evil misinterpretation of Paul, just as we think that the Gnostics have a dark and evil misinterpretation of all of Scripture. We don’t think the worse of Scripture just because the Gnostics misinterpret it; we don’t think any worse of Paul because the Reformed misinterpret him either.
Since every Protestant is apparently gifted with a God given right to be his own Pope, theoretically, there is a different denomination with every single Protestant.
Churches of one, you might say.
Looking through Reformed glasses, one sees that one’s prayers are entirely mechanical exercises because nothing anyone does is of consequence, yet one does them because one ought to.
There are no consequences for not praying so why ought one to pray? Because we ought to.
Okay. Salvation now versus final salvation. You guys get better and better. :)
I’ll bite. What is salvation now and what is salvation then? How do they differ? They must differ because you point them out separately.
c’mon now, doc. I know you hang your head when you think of George, and you say to yourself, “how in the world did he get mixed up with john wesley!!??”
so....i’ve decided to take him as my patron.
I’m a calvinist in the tradition of wesley-arminian whitefield.
Does this mean that you consider yourself a Red-Letter Catholic?
And there is Liberia, where drug-fueled gangs of machete-wielding adolescents terrorize shanty towns and changes of government are marked by the ceremonial feeding of the outgoing President’s ears to himself and of his genitalia to the incoming President (on the grounds that the former leader’s powers are contained therein. Which would certainly add a bit of culinary variety to the New Hampshire primary’s rubber-chicken circuit)."
This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. :>)
For some really 1st rate enjoyable reading, go here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1900211/posts
While I understand what you are trying to say, let's keep in mind a certain truth: actions speak louder than words. Normal people don't hold "very lively discussions" over topics that don't make any difference. Someone in the congregation obviously thinks it does and they're trying to tell you about it.
These are more subtle points of view that have little to do with justification, sanctification, atonement, election, predestination, and all the other far more important things.
While I'm not clear as to what all the other far more important things might be, I'll take your point. Nevertheless, the subject of eschatology is getting hotter by the minute and, as I opined before, it's only a matter of time before it comes to a head and causes a schism.
I am very set in my ways on baptism but I can assure you, if a Reformed Presbyterian church opened up across the street from me, I would think nothing of leaving my Southern Baptist church.
You have that luxury. You've already been baptized by immersion (or so I assume). However, if you start hanging your hat with the RP and, subsequently, you evangelize someone, what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled? Also, the RP baptize infants, which is to say, they hold it up and show it some water. Are you ok with that?
Applause.
You do make some very fine points in the debate.
It is true that we consider the specific Word of God to be of the greatest value in a work of unequalled value elsewhere in the world. The NT is then measured against the understanding of the Word of God and where there is apparent conflict, the NT is studied until it is understood. The OT is then studied in the same fashion against the entire NT.
We do believe that the Word of God is the Word of God, whether NT or OT. The caution is that the OT earlier chapters were passed down through so many generations, that one must really study them to understand them
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.