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.
The Godparents are the backup parents, as it were in case something happens to the bio parents; they are also to support the bio parents in raising the child as a Christian.
Are you saying that guilt only comes from loving God? I have a mother in law that must be sinless, then.
We don’t believe that God frogmarches anyone to salvation. We believe that He is the Via. The Way.
Not the limo ride.
Let me use a Protestant excuse I once heard: I may not be right all the time, but I am never wrong. (spoken like a true "elect").
Seriously, you wrote: "The phrase 'she shall be saved in childbearing' refers to the pain of childbirth."
The pain of childbirth was a punisment, not salvation. Now, if you so desire, you can go and spin as much as you wnat to sugar-coat this with out-of-context verses to your heart's desire, be my guest.
the other day you said Peter chastized Paul, which he never didM
Can you reference this?
FYI, I had natural childbirth and I don't recommend it
I don't blame you.
What do you know about childbirth, Kosta?
I would say more than an average Joe.
“God changes the wills of the elect so they will come to Him.”
Robot slaves. Coerced love. Forced repentence. So God wishes a human hive culture to love Him and worship Him?
“No, those verses were applicable to those who witnessed Christ working miracle’s by the power of the Spirit, and then saying that Christ was demon-filled instead. That is no longer possible since Christ is now at the right hand of God.”
Do you have verse to prove this? If I blaspheme the Holy Spirit, I no longer go to hell? Where does Scripture say this?
Please note what Cyprian is saying, the Church is founded upon the bishops. This does not indicate one person in charge but multiple bishops in charge of their flocks under a Christian banner. Hence the churches of Revelation did not fall under one central Church but was their own entity.
Your ignorance of Orthodoxy is apalling given that you claim to study Patristics.
The Church teaches the same thing it taught for the last 2,000 years: we are all destined to die because of the original sin. Death is part of our fallen nature. What happens to the soul after death is a different story, but it's not necessarily destined to hell.
LOL, FK!!! You're absolutely correct. John 15 becomes an exercise in trying to decide who Christ is speaking to so I have highlighted parts of it to make it a little more understandable.
Only apalling??? I'll try to do better.
The Church teaches the same thing it taught for the last 2,000 years: we are all destined to die because of the original sin.
That's true. I should be more careful. Orthodox do not look at original sin the way the west looks at it. Orthodox sees it as the spiritual and physical death of man while the west looks at it as a general condition of man. Is that better?
The context is speaking about transgression and the suffering in childbearing caused by the transgression. (Gen. 3:16, “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”) Paul is giving advice to women already saved and participating in the life of the church. They are already exhibiting “faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” in their walk and are told to continue in it. The use of “sozo” saved is similar to its interpretation as “healed” in (Mark 5:23), “And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.”
In other words their suffering in childbearing because of Eve’s transgression would not cause them to fear they were still in sin and lost. Otherwise, Paul is introducing a new means of salvation for all women, not just wives, and not available to men, and God is not a respecter of persons.
Perhaps you should read what else Blessed Cyprian had to say before you comment.
“’...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ IT IS ON HIM THAT HE BUILDS THE CHURCH , and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
There are more of these writings also.
I wish you a Blessed Day!
Very interesting summary.
I would be fascinated to understand your understanding of verse 15 in which He tells them that they are no longer slaves, but friends.
In the East: The primary consequence of Original Sin is death. The reality of death causes people to desire that which can distract them from the reality of their impending death. Hence, people turn to sex, money, and power as a way to forget about death. In this way, death leads to sin.
In the West: The primary consequence of Original Sin is a “stain” of guilt. People are born with a guilt that needs to be washed away as soon as possible.
Both the East and the West agree that original sin causes an ABSENCE of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through baptism, the Holy Spirit can again dwell within man.
The differences between East and West are not great; it is more of an emphasis on different aspects, rather than differences in theology.
We confess to priests because Jesus told the Apostles to go and handle the forgiveness of sins, not simply look to Heaven and have them forgiven. The Sacrament of Confession is remarkably powerful and humbling. Jesus knew what He was doing. You oughta try it sometime. It is not limited to Catholics, you know. :)
The help of all Christians is normally, well, helpful; examples abound in Scripture of those Christians who are to help others. We are told to pray for others; our prayers for the departed are heard by God.
Does that mean that saying the Rosary is required for salvation? No. That is like saying that one type of food is required to eat in order to live. But you must have SOME kind of food. Jesus has given us help aplenty along our Via. But it’s up to us to use that help.
Paul appears to have the Gospel according to Calvin, except where, he doesn’t and then we just pretend that the verses simply don’t exist, any more than the Deuterocanonicals exist.
Virtually all the writings in the New Testament are addressed to specific churches,
1Co 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth,
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you.
Col 4:15 Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church,
The church is subject to Christ - Eph 5:24 But as the church is subject to Christ,
Christ will present the church to God - Eph 5:27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory,
One universal Church with a Pope handed down is not only historically inaccurate but it is scripturally inaccurate. The Orthodox don't even agree with this. Scripture at times refers to the church as all encompassing. At other times it is used independently. I think that is how the early church fathers saw it as well.
One universal Church with a Pope handed down is not only historically inaccurate but it is scripturally inaccurate.
Nonsense!
I’m busy and pressed for time... so I will use this from scripurecatholic to illustrate
Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.
Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.
Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an “office” and a “station.” An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required. This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.
Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God’s people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church “Pope.” The Pope is the father of God’s people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ’s representative on earth.
Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ’s kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.
Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles’ offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter’s death.
John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus’ creation of Peter’s office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.
Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses’ seat (”cathedra”) of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter’s seat is called the “cathedra,” and when Peter’s successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an “ex cathedra” (from the chair) teaching.
Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ’s Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.
And.....
The Church is Visible and One
Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.
Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).” There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.
John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.
John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.
John 17:9-26 - Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.
John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.
Rom. 15:5 - Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.
Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.
1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?
Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - again, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.
Eph. 4:11-14 - God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.
Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.
Eph. 5:25 - the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.
Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 - we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.
Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.
Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different “Protest”ant denominations?
Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.
1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.
2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ’s Church.
2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ’s teachings which He gives us through His Church.
Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is “catholic,” which means universal.
1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.
Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.
Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.
1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ’s Church.
Overwhelming Scriptural (versus simply Pauline) proofs.
Our Lord Jesus has reveal His truth to us. We know that His word is true because He has revealed this to us. He considers us His friends since He has done so. He doesn't do it for everyone. We, OTOH, consider ourselves bond-servants for Him for His having done so. It is a matter of perspective.
Telling the child this would also be on my list. Is this usually part of a Calvinist religious education to children? How young would they be when informed?
Isn't that why we baptize babies, to commit them into the hands of God? Well at least Protestants do. I believe Catholics baptize them into the Church.
All a person can do is give the outward call of God. We can share the message but we cannot change the heart. God must do that if He so wills.
But is it taught that it's predetermined whether God's hands will take them? That they may have be born for hell no matter what?
I think that's different, isn't it?
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.