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.
I like the words "general benevolence" of God towards His creation rather than any kind of grace being seen as given to the reprobate. Grace saves. Period.
Actually, the more good things God gives the reprobate, the more he is condemned by his disbelief.
Of a truth, math/science threads often devolve into a debate over semantics. It happens less frequently on theology/philosophy threads. But this was a math/science sidebar in the middle of a theology thread, so there you have it.
Neverthless, this particular sidebar - although somewhat semantic - turned more on the worldview of the participants – which I suspect you have noticed based on the excerpt you chose.
Obviously, those who believe time is an illusion (doesn't exist) have a different worldview from those who view time as geometric – line, plane, volume – in n spatial/temporal dimensions, spiritual and/or physical.
When the conversation runs aground in an irreconcilable difference in worldviews, it often behooves everyone just to drop it and go on to something else which is what we have done here. LOL!
By the way, my personal musing is that the Catholic/Orthodox v. Protestant/Reformed debate likewise turns on an irreconcilable difference in worldviews not unlike the one linked above.
The church in the worldview of one is physical; in the other, spiritual. The succession from the apostles in the one is physical; in the other, spiritual. The one emphasizes the mortals used of God; the other, God’s use of mortals. The one emphasizes the accoutrements of worship; the other, the words of God. The one, the good works of a man; the other, God’s working good through a man. And so on.
I thank God for both sides. Jesus chose twelve very different apostles (Peter, John, Thomas, Paul, etc.) and He accepted with commendation and rebuke seven very different churches in Revelation.
Truly, every Christian can find fellowship in the glorious body of Christ.
Also, my above musing relates to Dr. Eckleburg's reply - because the Scripture testimony of the Apostles John and Paul are particularly vivid on the spiritual side. Namely, the many blessed assurances that Jesus is God, the living Word of God, that God is Light and Love - and has done what we could never do, i.e. we can truly let go of this world - love Him, believe Him, trust Him and follow Him.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9
Which contradicts nothing.
Here we see some overly literal mistranslation of protestants who are the same folks who consider most of Corthinians to be anaocronistic waste of parchment non applicable to their churches since their favorite lawyers said so.
Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way." Psalm 119:100,104
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." -- Proverbs 30:5
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." -- Luke 4:4
"I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts...
Thank you so much for sharing your insights!
Which Pope claimed that Mary is the firstborn?
I’m not sure I’ve run into that one before.
Unlike many other Christians who follow variously identified men, it is necessary for Catholics to believe fully, wholly, and completely in the Gospels of Jesus Christ, and also in the whole Bible. If that is not fulfilled first and foremost, then they are not Catholics.
We do not override the Bible, or leave out whole books when they don’t agree with our theology. There, isn’t it better when we have spoken the truth?
Protestants have the faith of Jesus Christ which God has given to them. You, OTOH, seem to have only slander.
"For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off." -- Psalm 37:28
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." -- Romans 10:13"He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." -- Proverbs 10:18
Thanx for the recap. How many pages of responses can I skip now? LOL
What "invented terminology?" I gave you Hebrews 10. I didn't write it. Protestants didn't write it. God wrote it.
Obviously, since you give no evidence for your opinions other than a disparaging "oh, yeah?", you cannot refute the Scriptures and Hebrews 10.
All you can do is to continue to deny them.
Fascinating.
Are you saying that whatever it is that you do is God’s will? You have no freedom in the matter? Would you compare it to picking a card, any card, but the magician directs your picking to a certain card 100% of the time? I am unable to discern other than programming, and I keep coming back to the same conclusions. You folks say it isn’t preprogrammed robotic behaviour. If you say that whichever deed you pick is God’s choice for you, what’s the qualitative difference?
If deeds happen, just like the running of the bases, as an aftereffect of salvation, are they meaningless in themselves, then, just a show, or a formality?
Absolutely I agree that there are almost certainly deathbed repentences that count with Him. I wouldn’t let it go that long, though. I mean, if you’re counting on that last second conversion, and you fall under an atomic bomb, there’s not a lot of time available for such a feat.
***And such an axiomatic approach sets as absolute the impossibility of Science figuring out a better way to characterize ‘position and momentum’ via some as yet undiscovered principle undergirding reality ... like Time is not ‘planar’ (brane-wise) for the entire created universe, thus momentum and position are impossible to measure simultaneously only because temporally our measurements are currently confined to the ‘arrow of time’ as we currently define it.***
Is this your postulation or the Atheist’s?
8~)
Thanks for your reply. I am reasonably aware of the Holy Spirit and how He works; it is the Reformed theology that I have trouble understanding.
Now, under Reformed doctrine:
1. How does God bless you through prayer?
2. This thread contains numerous posts from Reformed who claim that they ARE elect and they know it. If God doesn’t tell them, how do they know?
3. The unsaved are always going to be unsaved. What’s the point of giving them the Gospel?
4. This thread contains numbeous posts from Reformed who claim that all of their sins past and future are already forgiven. If they are forgiven, then they are forgiven. Why would you pray for forgiveness, when, upon notification of being the elect, you are forgiven at that point in the past?
5. I thought that salvation is a one-shot deal. What does it mean that the Holy Spirit continues to work in your sanctification?
6. What defines a believer? Can a non elect be a believer?
If you could answer these through Reformed theology, I’d be grateful. We have had the teachings of Jesus, then the Apostles and the Church for 2000 years, and the Bible for 1700 years. It’s the Johnny-come-latelies with variably generated theologies that I have a little trouble understanding.
From ‘like Time is not ‘planar’’ is my own postulate.
Paul, in speaking to believers and encouraging them to persevere in truth and joy, assures them...
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
So it looks like Paul has answered your question.
You have several times indicated that Orthodox and latin Priests make sacrifices; they do not; it is invented terminology either on your part or on the part of protestant reformers; im not sure which.
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.