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.
You caught that, too, eh? It's the obvious conclusion. See post 7,660.
And here I thought that Calvinists were the exclusivist organization, because only they were preselected for the prize in heaven. At least that what they seem to say, that God MUST give them salvation because THEY have said so...
But really. I think it would be wiser to not type what you typed, since it makes you look pretty ignornant. A simple glance at the Catechism will show you are blurting out the usual "strawman" arguments. Since you undoubtedly have a Catechism (you seem to "know" a lot about what we believe, so I figure you have a Catechism...), I will just point you to paragraph 839-848. Come back and then tell me what you think about what you just typed...
Regards
BTW, the Sermon on the Mount and all the other things that Jesus said, were not to you either, but just to the immediate audience. Were you among the 5,000? Were you at the Last Supper? /sarcasm
Well let me fire up the handy-dandy scripture generator and crank out some.
I want one of those! It takes me such a long time to look things up.
Well, Harley is reading the Church Fathers. It is only a matter of time before he discovers how "un-Protestant" the Church was. Once he moves onto another subject that they write about besides free will, such as the Eucharist or Baptism...
Regards
Now that's making it personal, jo kus, and I know you are better than that. (Also, when hurling an insult, it's best to spell it correctly.)
God gives salvation to whom He will according to His unmerited, free grace, not through men's good works. I'll skip the catechism and let's both reread Ephesians 1 & 2.
RCC baptism is nothing like Protestant baptism. My children were not given some time-stamped free pass at their baptism. They were, however, baptized as a sign and seal of God’s eternal, holy and predestining love for His family.
Why do you say "if it was intended for someone else, we don't need to read it?" Are you saying that a poem is only worthwhile to the person it is written to? Are you saying that a story is not worthwhile to anyone else but the intended audience? Naturally, we, as Christians, can take something from the written Scriptures, but not because they are written - they are part of the teachings of the Apostles. Being Christians, Apostolic teachings have meaning to us. It doesn't mean that every verse applies to us literally.
Yes, Paul was speaking to the Thessalonicans, but the successors of the Apostles determined that those two letters were worthwhile reading for subsequent Christians. It doesn't mean that Paul was saying that ANYONE who reads that letter is "of the elect".
And naturally, one should consider what the REST of the Apostolic teachings found in the Scriptures SAY, such as:
And ye shall be hated by everyone for my name, but he that shall persevere unto the end, the same shall be saved Mark 13:13
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasures up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to everyone according to his deeds: to those who persevered in well doing, glory and honour and incorruption, to those who seek eternal life; but unto those that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but are persuaded by unrighteousness, indignation and wrath. Romans 2:5-8
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly persevere in the faith which was given once unto the saints. Jude 3
If you believe that the Bible was written for Christians for all ages, then you should heed ALL of it, like the parts about persevering in the faith.
Regards
The term "ignorant" (sorry about the previous spelling...) means that you were not aware of the Catholic teaching on the subject. That is clear - and I have posted you paragraphs that you may look through at your convenience. They were not meant as "hurling insults" - as you noted.
God gives salvation to whom He will according to His unmerited, free grace, not through men's good works. I'll skip the catechism and let's both reread Ephesians 1 & 2.
It is strange that you say that, because you post from your own catechisms more than any other Protestant that I know... We believe that the catechisms are a summation of our faith and are indeed taken from the Scriptures and teachings of our respective traditions in interpreting those Scriptures. As such, I will overlook your comment, since I believe we would agree on the utilization of a catechism and you just may not be taking your own use into consideration.
I pray that you have no hard feelings towards me - we both feel strongly about our respective positions.
Regards
No, a person has to command God to give to them first. Thus, you claim you are of the elect for heaven, because you say so. I find it interesting that a Calvinist would say this without realizing the irony of the attack!
Catholics do not believe that those baptized are necessarily going to heaven.
Regards
If you continue to presume what I read and believe, then you will continue to make assertions that are incorrect and ignorant. You have no idea who you are talking to, nor how much I know. It was YOUR assertion that Paul wrote the epistle for the Thessaloniacans, not mine. It was YOU who said he didn’t write it to me. Therefore, it is YOU who made irresponsible and unfounded assertions, not me.
“I would suggest this most likely is from one of Augustine’s earlier sermons.”
Actually its from the later, middle period and was not retracted at the end of his life.
HD, I’m always glad to see that someone is reading the Fathers! But try not to proof-text them, HD. Western Protestant exegesis doesn’t work well at all with the Fathers. They say all sorts of things. +John Chrysostomos himself opined that the Most Holy Theotokos sinned. Consensus patrum, HD, consensus patrum, otherwise reading the Fathers is simply an exercise in looking for self confirmation.
lol. I'm not the one calling Irishtenor, Forest Keeper, Alamo-Girl or 1000 silverlings "non Christian."
***Thus, you claim you are of the elect for heaven, because you say so.***
No, God says so.
Irishtenor's question was rhetorical. You've proven his point -- the Bible is written to everyone who reads and believes it, by the grace of God, and not just to the Apostles.
Bought mine on E-Bay :>)
Yes, I've come to admire the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Confession of Faith a great deal because every line is based on Scripture.
For me, I don't find that cohesion in the RCC catechism.
I pray that you have no hard feelings towards me - we both feel strongly about our respective positions.
I like strong feelings, jo kus, and I greet you as a brother in Christ and as a fellow Christian. 8~)
I don't call anyone a heretic. Only you know if your belief is heretical or not. Heresy being, by definition, teaching other than what the Church taught from the beginning. In that sense, I do say that Protestant theology is heresy.
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.