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.
Yes, note also in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Supposedly, Peter would have been the bishop there for many years and still would be when Paul wrote the letter, went there and was imprisoned. Not one mention of Peter ever, no greetings to him anywhere. And no help from him either if he was there!
Terrific post, Harley!
No, Paul is certainly not God and he was the first to say so. But he was entrusted with organizing and watching over all the churches.
"Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." -- 2 Corinthians 11:28
And he corrected Peter on several occasions.
The RCC, however, wrongly teaches that priests, after some fabricated manner of Peter, are "another Christ."
Outright blasphemy. Repent of it.
Rome is a strange place.
Romans 1:5
By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1:8 First , I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
1:10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
1:12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto ,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
Those matters are part of our sanctification, not our justification.
As has been said, if you get justification wrong, just about everything else will be off. And so it is with your denial that justification is by Christ alone as a one-time, perfectly performed, complete and personalized atonement of the sins of His sheep, according to the will and purpose of God from before the foundation of the world.
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Good, just trying to steer clear of a little trend toward Bibliolatry.
Repent of it.
Ah. If only I had free will.
;)
In the long run, how very true.
Amen. Unto this day.
Yes 1000's, and RC's believe this too. If they didn't they would not have an objection to women holding the office of priest, a basis for headcoverings, etc., etc.
It is kind of amusing to think how women in the RCC might regard being in the priesthood if only oral tradition was presented to them as a reason for denial.
Yes, they remind me of the atheists who bring out the bible to chastise Christians. See here.... they sputter in indignation...
But what we are talking about is salvation and entry into Heaven. It is the difference between necessary AND sufficient, and necessary BUT insufficient.
Peter was in Rome
As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
You also said....
“”Peter was never in charge of any churches, either””
The Early Church Fathers don’t agree with you
I think it my duty to consult the CHAIR OF PETER, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the CHAIR OF PETER. FOR THIS, I KNOW, IS THE ROCK on which the CHURCH is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).
Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons For what we have received from the BLESSED APOSTLE PETER, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us. Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).
Dear Friend,
Are you suggesting these guys are lying?
You had better hope they were not liers,because they were involved in the Bible Canon process
I have no opinion of or about them, one way or another as nothing they ever did or say, affects my salvation one whit. I do know from the bible that God never lies, and from it I see no evidence of a Peter-built truck of a church
The Bible does not tell you that you need oxygen to breathe either.
Does this mean you will stick your head in a plastic bag and live -;)
You can do better than that. Bring up snake handling, now that’s funny!
You mean simpletons?.
I can't hep your confusion, HD. Maybe you can tell us just where this eternal lake of fire is supposed to be? If I remember well, the fire itself is burning sulfur. Eternally burning sulfur?
The verses referring to the lake of fire are metaphorical, but then I am sure there are some who take them literally.
Normally [the OT] talks about the righteous living forever with God while the wicked will be cut off
Judaism doesn't teach that. It is possible that you are misinterpreting their own scripture? According to Jewish Encyclopedia Sheol is
"a place beneath the earth, beyond gates, where both the bad and the good, slave and king, pious and wicked must go at the point of death."
Soteriology is unknown to Judaism. Therefore your assertion that the "righteous living forever with God" cannot come from the OT.
You've already have gone on record as not believing in the Old Testament and not believing in Paul's writings
That's a mischaracterization, HD. I never said I don't believe the OT. I just don't believe in it literally. I also believe that some of the Episles are writings of St. Paul. The way he is interpreted by Protestants is what I doubt. I also look at St.Paul as a necessary element in saving the church, which was literally evicted in Israel. There was no other choice but to go to the Gentiles.
Acts 13:46 speaks poignantly about this:
"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles."
Thus, Gentiles came to the Apostles as an afterthought, as Christ never suggested that they preach to the Gentiles. To the contrary, He told them to stay away from them! So, if it was God's intention to take His message to the Gentiles, it was not revealed while He was walking on easrth. To say that he revealed it to St. Paul is unconvincing because when He died he is quoted as saying "it is finished/accomplished."
Christ was God's full revelation to mankind. Further revelations simply don't make sense, which is why to me St. Paul's Epistles are not Gospels, and why the Book of Revelation is suspect. They both claim further revelation, which suggests that Christ's revealtion was incomplete.
If our Lord stated it, I think it's more than "scary". Psa 30:3 O LORD, You have brought up my soul from Sheol; You have kept me alive, that I would not go down to the pit
Again, you are proofing Christ with OT. Humanity was in the pit hopelessly until Christ came and offered everyone His hand.
Being saved for having babies is part of "sanctification" and not "justification?" So there are two ways of being saved?
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.