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.
LOL. I never in my life knew someone who spent so much time clamoring about women's head coverings or the lack thereof.
A woman's hair is her head covering.
Next!
Look at the difference in terms of what each says about the creator.
I really don't see much of a difference. In both cases the person has ZERO chance of getting into Heaven. In fact, if God's true word is that ALL have a chance, then it would be more cruel, it seems, to create someone who has no chance, but yet has free will in the Apostolic sense. :)
And ask yourself: Is a human being really human without free will?
He would be less of a human being if he experienced that he didn't have free will. I'll agree to that. But of course, our actual experience is that of having a full free will. Therefore, regardless of which, if either, of our respective theologies is right on this, I don't think it really has any effect on our humanity.
“A woman’s hair is her head covering.”
That’s 1 Cor. 11:15, if anyone is listening!!!
And, no doubt, there are those who believe Einstein's theory of relativity and current cosmology are divine.
The Point at Infinity which is defined as the intersection of two parallel lines was first considered by Desargues (1591-1661) and Poncelet (1788-1867) was first to employ it.
It is mental exercise. Infinity is never reached. Therefore, parallel lines will never reach. We will spend an infinity getting to know God in heaven and we will never know Him. To say that two parallel lines meet at infinity is as good as saying they never meet, A-G. In other words, their angle of convergence is infinitely small. Only someone very naive would treat infinity as a real destination.
Einstein wasn’t even born until 1904
I am sure he knew of Desargues and Poncelet.
Since you have no source for it, I shall dismiss your claim at 8447 that Einstein had postulated there is “a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall.”
Then there was no reason to believe the universe was curved. By the way, light is bent by gravity not space or time.We have no clue whatsoever why gravity exists.
The fact that all points in the universe are diverging from each other (like dots on an expanding balloon), there is by implication a common center of gravity. Big Bang is postulated on the existence of the universal center of gravity.
But Big Bang fails to explain why, just as it fails to explain what overwhelmed the force that contained all the energy/matter in a dimensionless point, and resulted in the corresponding explosion.
What? Who removes our wickedness? Is it not the Holy Spirit? Are you saying He is doing an incomplete job? I must admit, this is a new one.
St. Paul doesn't think there is a "remannt," FK:
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect [Heb12:23]
***Protestants put tehir faith iun 15th century west europeons; not in Christ.***
Prove it.
***Protestants have no faith in Christ they have faith in french and german lawyers.***
Sir, you are making assumptions on personal faith issues. I ask you to please stop. You have no right to tell me or any other Protestant that they have no faith just because we disagree with you. Again I ask you to stop. NOW.
The RCC corrupted early church teachings and sadly continues to do so. Reformed theology came about not due to wanting something new, but in wanting something as pure as possible this side of heaven.
If another 2000 years go by, who will recognize the Roman Catholic Church of today.
“Reformed theology is not new, nor is it ‘come lately’.”
I suppose its all in what one considers “new”. Compared to the theology of the Church of the 7 Councils, it certainly is “new”. You know, the Episcopalian heretics claim that their homoerotic “theology” is valid because “the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing.” It seems that the Reformers would argue the same thing, that the Holy Spirit was in their time doing a “new thing”, either that or that He went to sleep for 1500 years after Pentecost. In the West, there have been “new” theologies popping up for centuries. Its a problem for some of us, Athena.
“The RCC corrupted early church teachings and sadly continues to do so.”
Athena, do you believe this is also true of the Orthodox Church?
Oh, pleeazzzeeee. The Orthodox makes no bones about saying portions of scriptures are obsolete. Even Catholics would be hard press to say why they don't allow priests to marry in contradiction of scripture. As far as abridging the scripture, you won't find the ascension of Mary into heaven or her being perfect in scripture. I'd don't think I'd make that argument.
Normally, the Catholic/Orthodox argument is that you were given the keys and you can make any changes you feel necessary. I'd stick with that one if I were you, as shaky as that is.
BTW-It's a pleasure to know Catholics finally recognize Calvin as a Saint. We're making progress.
As long as it is not personal, racist, etc., he is etitled to believe and say that Protestats as a group "have no faith in Christ they have faith in french and german lawyers" because that's his opinion, just as the Reformed are allowed to believe and say that the Catholic/Orthodox Church is "idolatrous."
I have a personal question for you? Have you ever heard of or know about past participles?
Huh? Which ones?
LOL!!! You are joking, right?
I’d really like to caution folks about using Wiki as a definitive source for anything.
Christ is the Path, the Way, the Via. Not the chauffeur. The continuing claims that Catholics give credit to man weren’t right the first time a heretic said ‘em and they’ll never be right. We’re not on the hook, theologically speaking. We’re just following Christ’s instructions, not those of somebody who came along centuries later with a new twist on theology and hung up a shingle.
If perseverance is only for the elect, does that mean that the non elect do not persevere? Not even in their sin? But even the elect sin. Does that mean that there is a qualitative difference in the sin of the elect versus the non elect?
I got some strong replies to my posting of the hyper Calvinist article by folks that really seemed to adhere to its definition. :)
That is itself not biblical. Sola scriptura does not exist in the Bible.
"Every word of God is pure...Proverbs 30:5"
God is pure and His words are pure. Every word in the Bible is not the word of God.
The Bible is also not God.
Inspiration is not God.
The Gospels even are not direct quotes but narratives of what Jesus would have, or was known to have, or is believed to have said. Ancient writers quoted others based on their familiarity with the person. Their quotes are not direct quotes.
The Bible is what God revealed to lesser or greater degree, expressed in human terms, human emotions and human language.
The only way to know whether what we read is of any validity is to do textual criticism and this is possible only to a limited extent.
Some groups who claim Christ as their Saviour have an idolatrous relationship with the Bible.
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.