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.
Steyn is far too good to have come out of the American public school system. As it turns out, he didn’t.
Good for him; he has the perspective that a navel gazing nation often doesn’t have. I enjoy his writing, his world view, and especially his prose, and I get far too little of it.
Thank you.
It’s not that big a deal.
Relax. Have a marshmallow.
If I might differ with you on one small aspect of society. We do pay inordinate amount of attention to something that is of supreme indifference. Sports.
I live in an area where we have Cubs fans, Cardinal fans, Bears fans, Blues fans, and Black Hawk fans. I grew up in an area where we had Leafs fans, Blue Jays fans, Tiger Cat fans, Argonaut fans, Saber fans and Bills fans.
We fought emotionally over those when I was young. I am actually amused by the locals here who think that .500 clubs in first place are worthy of note.
I’ve apologized twice.
Three times doesn’t bother me. I screwed up that post, not intentionally, Dr. E, but I apologize once again.
I'll meet you halfway: sports, in and of themselves, are not of great importance. Granted. But, the reason people argue about them because they care. As for why they care, I don't know. :)
In my search for salvation, I researched all the Eastern religions, I did not find a Loving God in any of them...When I was called by the Ru'ach Hakodesh, I was not called to any denomination. I was called to the Word of G-d...In Christianity, I realized Paganism was introduced in the second century and third century and Paganism was codified into Christianity in the fourth century and beyond...
Thank you for your unsolicited opinions, but you are still not answering my question, which required a simple Yes or a No.
What's the difference? It's all be pre-determined in the reformed theology.
So any doctrine is okay, as long as we call on Christ as our Savior? That is an ecumenical pearl, x-zins.
Depends on the situation. Sometimes you are served choices that make your enemy look like a "good guy." There are people who are so far to the left, Hillary appears like a right-wing extremist next to them! If they were running, then even Hillary might not look so bad (how low can we stoop....?).
I’m not the one who calls sinners to repentance, kosta. That would be Jesus. You need to take this one up with Him.
The point, kosta, is that it is possible to both have choice and be unable to choose in favor of someone.
Yes, what a good thing. We should ALL repent for our sins.
I agree that we've talked about this before, and I think that back then I acknowledged that many verses could be taken either way. I've never done a count so I don't know what the majority is. I just say that there are BOTH judgments.
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".
To me this still seems like a 180 degree contradictory statement. In the second sentence you say that men are judged for salvation on what they do. In the third sentence you say no one earns anything for salvation because of what he did. You can have one or the other, or neither, but you cannot have both. :)
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.
And yet you just finished telling me that we do not merit entry into Heaven. Perhaps the entire concepts of "merit" or "earning" or "works" have theological meanings that appear no where in dictionaries. That must be the case since I have never been able to even follow this line of reasoning. :)
[From Luke 13:24-30: (with commentary)] Strive to enter in at the narrow gate; (ouch, that hurts the "God does everything" idea, doesn't it?) ...
Not at all. The Bible was written FOR us, not FOR God. "God doing everything" includes His putting those words there so that someday I will read them and be motivated to follow them. We humans need motivation and God uses different methods of accomplishing that. A large amount of that is contained in the encouragements and teachings we get in the Bible.
[continuing] ... for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able.
True, false believers exist and will be turned away at the end. OTOH, true believers have already had their places made in Heaven by Christ Himself. (John 14:2-3)
No, that is illogical. If you are unable to choose than you have no choice. I would not vote for Hillary because of what she stands for. So mine is a conscious and willful decision not to vote even though the choice is there (and I am actually exercising my election by willfully refusing her!). As I said, if there was another candidate who was so far to the left that she appeared like a right-wing extremist in comparison, then I might opt to vote for her as a better of two evils.
Likewise, what stops us from coming to Christ? Ignorance is one. Those who never heard of Him or who have been prejudiced against Him in another faith will willfully refuse to come to Him. Those who have been made aware of Him and heard the Gospel and then refuse do so on their own will and choosing. God's grace is offered to everyone. Those who refuse it do so willingly and not because they can't choose.
In order for a choice to be valid, there has to be a free will to make a choice. Otherwise it is not an election.
Christ did not say: "believe anything you like; as long as you call on My name it's okay."
Then EXPLAIN why we are saying it?
Paul is distinguishing between salvation at point of belief and salvation at entry into Heaven
And lots of things can happen on the way to Paradise. People change thgeir travel plans.
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
What does that mean? Is God saying "Hello, FK, I testify to you that you are My (adopted) son?" Of course not! You think you are. You might even say that you "feel" you are. You may even say that you know you are, but you have no proof of anything—to borrow one FReeper's term "you got nothin'." By what means does God "testify" that you, specifically, are His son?
Don't get me wrong: the verse sure sounds good. But that's not what faith is about, is it?
That's not correct. Paul was encouraging us to not become slackers during the race we run during life
No, he was apparently at times preaching the exact opposite of what Christ preachesd. Like his famous saying "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." [2 Thess 3:10].
Yet the Gospel tells us "not to worry" because the "Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." [Mat 6:32-33]
Of course He does! He is not partial. Does not the sun shine on the pious and impious?
God, from eternity, after the council of his own will, and for the manifestation and exaltation of his glorious attributes, decreed all that he would do in time and to eternity, in creation, in the government of his creatures, and in the salvation of sinners of the human race; yet so that he is not the author of sin nor constrains the will of his creature in its actions (a). The decree of God depends not in the least upon the creature nor upon the foreknowledge of God himself; on the contrary, God knows that certain things will be, because he has decreed that they should be (b). God's decree is infinitely wise (c), and perfectly just (d); eternal (e), free (f), comprehensive (g), secret (h), gracious (I), holy (j), good (k), unchangeable (l), and effectual (m)...
12. On the Election of Grace. God from eternity elected and appointed Christ to be the covenant head, mediator, and surety of his church, to redeem and save it (a). God elected also in Christ a great multitude, which no man can number, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, to holiness and eternal life (b) : and appointed all the means necessary to accomplish this end (c). This election is eternal (d), righteous (e), sovereign (f), unconditional (g), particular or personal (h), and unchangeable (I). The election of grace wrongs no one : though God in righteousness left some persons unpredestinated, yet, he did them no injustice; they are in the same condition in which they would have been, if there had been no election; and if there had been no election of grace, no flesh would have been saved (j).5. Of God's Decree.
I like it.
And who doesn't like George Whitefield? His sermons were terrific...
Was God "partial" to the Israelites?
Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring" -- Isaiah 44:1-3"Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
Protestants forget why we left Rome.
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.