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.
Which makes you wonder if the east considers their priests to be “another Christ.”
God is always free to exercise His will. All that happens happens by His will. It makes no sense that He would "ordain" Himself to do something He doesn't want. God is not predestined to do anything.
Aside from God being "predestined" to conform to His own nature, I'd say this sounds pretty good, Kosta. :) Part of that nature would include never needing to change His mind.
Thank you for saying this. I wholeheartedly agree.
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (1CO 10:31; 1PE 4:11; REV 1:6; 2PE 3:1; EPH 3:21; REV 7:12; ROM 11:36) Soli Deo Gloria!
There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time...For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. (1TI 2:5-6; COL 1:13-18) Solo Christo!
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us. (Ephesians 1:3-8) Sola Gratia!
Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you." So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them." Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "The righteous man shall live by faith." (Galatians 3:6-11) Sola Fide!
“I consider any doctrine ‘new’ that the bible does not teach. By teach, I mean that it is testified to by all scripture, and that it is not used out of context to teach falsely....etc.”
Well, fine, but is the same true for the Orthodox Church?
He has foreordained us to salvation, and that is biblical. Can you show me where it is not?
The Spirit of God moves the believer to pray. It is a natural desire of a believer to pray as well as an act of obdeience to God. Again, show me where God claims He has not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass or where he has not asked us to pray to Him?
In my last post I spoke to two different ideas and you now try to make them one idea. That is dishonest, or you need to go back and reread my post for better comprehension. The elect know they are saved by His word and His spirit. But we cannot know who the unsaved are. And that, Mark, was made very clear in my post. Again, more redundancy with your questions? We do not know who is saved Mark, save for those who confess Christ, only God does. Potential believer? Only in that WE CANNOT KNOW who they are. How does this concept so elude you? Have you read your bible?
The RCC teaches heretical doctrine. Praying to Mary as just one example. As to any of the reformers being pure...no one is pure save God.
What are the ‘old heresies’ that reformed doctrine resurrected?
As to reigns of terror we only need to think of Bloody Mary and the inquisition...or if Spain and England are too tame, how about France and St. Bartholemy Day?
He has foreordained us to salvation, and that is biblical. Can you show me where it is not?
The Spirit of God moves the believer to pray. It is a natural desire of a believer to pray as well as an act of obdeience to God. Again, show me where God claims He has not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass or where he has not asked us to pray to Him?
In my last post I spoke to two different ideas and you now try to make them one idea. That is dishonest, or you need to go back and reread my post for better comprehension. The elect know they are saved by His word and His spirit. But we cannot know who the unsaved are. And that, Mark, was made very clear in my post. Again, more redundancy with your questions? We do not know who is saved Mark, save for those who confess Christ, only God does. Potential believer? Only in that WE CANNOT KNOW who they are. How does this concept so elude you? Have you read your bible?
The RCC teaches heretical doctrine. Praying to Mary as just one example. As to any of the reformers being pure...no one is pure save God.
What are the ‘old heresies’ that reformed doctrine resurrected?
As to reigns of terror we only need to think of Bloody Mary and the inquisition...or if Spain and England are too tame, how about France and St. Bartholemy Day?
Of Course
You are my sola sister!
STRANGE? ARE YOU THE BIBLE???
I am not the bible, thus, it is an outside "force" or entity...
I cannot believe I am explaining this to another person. On another forum, someone is using John 1:1-2 to claim that the Bible is God. Now, you are claiming to be the bible? What is it with you guys?
Regards
And you, as well. I hope that I have given you some food for thought.
Regards
LOL! Here we go again on the "merry-go-round" of reformed Christianity... It gives me a headache just thinking about the circular argument that this "doctrine" relies upon.
How do YOU know who is a "true Christian"? People today claim that they are "true Christians", only to be outcast by the "remaining true Christians" who said the other guy was "never one to begin with" 10 years later! You call that a "guarantee"?
You are right that there will be some who claim the same thing as I do who will be lost. No getting around that. That's why I can't claim with Divine certainty.
Ah, NOW we are getting somewhere!
Regards
You must be. For there is NOTHING about the Reformed anything that is "as pure as possible this side of heaven."
It doesn't say only the scripture. Besides, you don't know what scripture is. When this was written, "scripture" was a little different set of books than what you are reading today...
But I want to know HOW do YOU know WHAT is scriputre and what is not?
Can God change? Can He asusme a different nature and cease being divine? I would say God is very much "predestined" to conform to His own nature. This conforming is however done in concernt with His will. His will and His essence are never at odds, as is the case with the fallen nature of humans.
It doesn't constitute "proof" because it's solipsism. Problem is, in and of itself, such "knowledge" of being "saved" is itself suspect and without proof internally. It could be God, a demon, or insanity.
Kosta, I "think" you yourself have said that your own faith defies objective reason. You can't "prove" that your faith is reasonable by human standards. Yet, at the same time you demand that we prove to you by human standards that we can have assurance of our salvation. Is this fair? :) How can you prove that you are not "insane" for following the teachings of your Church? :) You believe that the Holy Spirit reveals the meanings of scripture to your men first, and through them to you. We believe that God skips the middlemen. I'm not asking you to believe the truth of my claim to being saved for certain. And even though I claim that my assurance is based on scripture, at least you could maybe recognize that I'm using the same "unprovable" faith that you are for such a belief.
Repentance is not a satisfying of a debt. That is your legal idea of your relationship with God coming to the forefront again. Our relationship with God is familial, thus, there is not a "debt satisfaction" when we repent.
It has nothing to do with MY relationship with God. Since you believe that each mortal sin yanks you out of Heaven again, I surmised that you must think that repentance for each settles the score so that you can once again gain entry. How is this NOT a "debt satisfaction"?
Why did God ordain it? Was He bound by some outside force, like the Bible? The incarnation did not have to happen. God CHOSE to save man in that manner.
I don't know why you would call the Bible an "outside force". God, in effect, WROTE the Bible. It's His word after all, not man's. ...... God COULD have ordered the universe such that man never needed saving. But He didn't. I presume that if the Fall of man was a given, that the Incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection were NECESSARY for His plan to save man. I don't think God would have chosen "overkill" given the circumstances (no pun intended). If God's justice would have been satisfied with a couple of rams on the altar, then I assume that's what would have happened. If man's salvation could have been accomplished with LESS than what happened, then Christ died in vain.
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.