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.
That depends: lattice-top or cobbler style?
I’m getting old, but I still care, and I started working out at a gym. Of course, to maintain equilibrium, for every pound I loose, I get to eat pie.
LOL! That’ll work.
It really doesn’t matter. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be apple. Banana cream, chocolate, Key Lime, you name it :>)
thanks for your reply.
that’s the way I’d look at it if I were a Calvinist and a parent.
Of course I think it’s tougher for Calvinists, for my too often stated reasons; but, I should add that some of my cradle-Catholic friends have some pretty sad memories as well.
I think we’d all be better sticking to: “Jesus loves me, this I know...”
... for the Bible tells me so.”
I use the puppets to sing that with the little ones.
That’s very cute. And all the little ones need.
So, if everything we have is what God gave us, as the Protestants interpret, what about afflictions, poverty, sickness, etc?
It seems to me that in the Gospel of John there's a story of a blind man and Jesus said he was that way so that God's glory could be shown in the man through Jesus' miraculous ministry. Therefore, one would think that Jesus was objecting to the notion that the man was blind because of his parents' sin.
John 9 1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" 3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.
There is no doubt that Jesus is saying that God brought this about in order to achieve a purpose. BUT...the blindness did not happen because the man or his parents sinned.
Of course afflictions, poverty, and sickness come to us from God. The bible is fairly clear on that.
Jesus, is, of course, the prime example of afflictions and holy poverty.
The holy prophets and martyrs are all evidence of the same.
Regarding sickness, it is clear that God struck Gehazi and also Naaman with sickness....directly and with purpose.
Then, of course, there is the issue again of God's foreknowledge about this world that God created. He KNEW ahead of the final act of creation about every person who would ever die, become impoverished, have a broken heart, become brutalized in any way, yet He created anyway.
He considered the accomplishment of His end purpose to outweigh all that anguish. Some might disagree with Him, but, neither are they God.
The God as perceived by the Jews in the OT does. In the NT, God heals the sick. What a difference! In fact, healing involves driving out evil spirits. And Christ says that He couldn't possibly be the devil because, by healing the sick, that would make Satan divided. Obviously, God and Satan are not both the cause of illness in the NT. In the OT, that's a different story: Satan works for God, and angles do all the killing in the name of God. It's like night and day.
Don't what? Answer you? That's what I intend on doing, after this.
I am capable of defending my position. Perhaps not to your astoundingly high standards, but just the same, they are acceptable to me and I choose to be a Catholic, regardless of your acceptance of the position.
My response to you had nothing to do with "being able to defend my position", but putting up with your attitude. Considering you have already decided that the Catholic Church is false and nothing I say will likely change that opinion, it is a waste of my time answering someone who begins the conversation as you did.
Regards
God clearly diseased Herod with worms.
"Acts 12: 21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a man." 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
My memory of the verses you cite says that they involved the casting out of demons. Therefore, Satan would not cast out Satan. A house divided cannot stand.
In the Revelation, God uses the bowl (vial) judgments, and those include disease.
..."vicarious atonement, was first stated by St. Anselm in Why God Became Human (1197-98): only human beings can rightfully repay the debt which was incurred through their willful disobedience to God, although only God can make the infinite satisfaction necessary to repay it; therefore God must send the God-man, Jesus Christ, to satisfy both these conditions. Anselm's doctrine, slightly altered or elaborated, has become part of Roman Catholic theology and of that of many Protestant churches." www.encyclopedia.com
Mark, why did God become human? To whom was a debt owed? God or the devil?
I wasn't aware there were other "apple pie" comments on the thread!
“Which central beliefs has the EO promulgated better than the RCC? (And does Ratzinger know about this?)”
The Orthodox have much better held onto the order of the Mass; the orientation of the priest and the demeanour of the celebration of Mass; we Latins have made it more casual, bringing more laity into what should be the desmaine of the ordained, for example.
And yes, Pope Benedict XVI knows about all this; it is one of the reasons for returning to the Tridentine Mass, Eckleburg.
Our beliefs in original sin and hell are aligned.
Then it must be the beliefs of you and Kosta that aren't aligned, since Kosta said (please correct me if I'm wrong, Kosta) that he does not believe in the Scriptural definition of hell nor original sin.
Maybe Kosta could define for us again his understanding of hell and original sin so we can see if it lines up with the RCC.
I appreciate the help.
It is true that St. Anselm had an effect on how we look at original sin, but we still view original sin as original sin; we have not cut a new suit out of the old cloth.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the Second Council of Orange (A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.
According to StJohnDC.org: The sin committed by our progenitors in paradise, with all its consequences, passed and passes from them to all their posterity. What the first people became after the Fall, such also till now are their descendants in the world. “Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image” (Genesis 5:3, KJV). Estrangement from God, the loss of grace, the distortion of God’s image, the perversion and weakening of the bodily organism, which ends with death - here is Adam’s sad legacy, received by each of us at our very appearance in the world. “As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream,” teaches the Orthodox catechism, “so from an ancestor infected with sin, and hence mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected with sin, and hence mortal.”
I don’t see a substantial difference in the whole, merely in emphasis.
Sin is an offence against Almighty God and the gravity of an offence is measured by the dignity of the person who is offended. If an offence is to be atoned for (if we are to make-up for what we have done) then we must make up for the offence in an acceptable way to the person offended. It is not possible for the creature (man) to make up in an adequate and acceptable way for an offence committed against the Creator (Almighty God). Only God could solve this problem and God did solve the problem by becoming Man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice of atonement (to make-up) for all the sins of mankind. Jesus offered His life to make amends for all the sins committed against God - an acceptable sacrifice which was more than adequate. Jesus gave His life for us when He suffered and died on the Cross. “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
We owe nothing to satan. We owe everything to God.
Kosta’s beliefs are, of course, his own. It is fascinating to have discourse on individual differences, but, in the end, it is the Catechism that is the standard against which we measure our own beliefs.
I do appreciate Suzy doing some digging for me on a previous post. The Catechism is the standard. If I, or any of us, fall short, it is normally easy to catch and understand.
No problem.
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.