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.
Hi FK,
My “proof” post was tongue in cheek.
It struck me as odd, your comment that you can know your assurance but not anothers.
If another’s assurance is not proof for you of them, then it would seem the same would apply to you of yours. Logically speaking.
Unless one of you lies, if you can’t be assured by his proof, you can’t be assured by yours - and vice-versa.
I’m speaking outside the faith issue your raise in this post I’m replying to. Just revisiting and clarifying what started the discussion.
Of course that would be God Himself. Otherwise it would not BE God's word, it would be man's word ABOUT God. Isn't that obvious? Who was it that determined what was and wasn't in your last post? :)
The Holy Spirit resides here in all those who have been regenerated. Many of those have also been water baptized. ...... Jesus the God-man is no longer here. He was accused of being inhabited by demons when in fact He was inhabited by the Holy Spirit. That's the crime. That crime is no longer possible since Jesus is no longer in corporeal form with an indwelling Spirit.
Just out of curiosity, would that even be proper? I mean, I know it is not proper for me to take the Eucharist, so would this be different?
?
That's fair enough. I know that the main use of the word is for salvational purposes. In my translation, especially in the OT, "grace" is used several times just in the "gift" sense. For example:
Isa 26:10 : 10 Though grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and regard not the majesty of the Lord.
I've heard the term "common grace" before to refer to rain and sunshine, etc. as opposed to saving grace. So, it's not really a big deal to me. But I do see where you're coming from.
Yes, God is sovereign and in full control of His creation. God's will is always done.
You have no freedom in the matter?
A loaded, but honest question. :) To my mind, in these discussions freedom is in the eye of the beholder. In my life I experience full freedom. I decide whether to get out of bed in the morning. However, unexperienced by me is God's controlling hand over everything. God, unknown to me, had already ordained that I would get out of bed yesterday, so I did. I pray He keeps the streak going. :)
Would you compare it to picking a card, any card, but the magician directs your picking to a certain card 100% of the time?
No, with a magician, the mark would experience that he is being manipulated for the purposes of entertainment. That is not what we experience. We experience unfettered freedom. Think of your kids when they were small. I am sure that you have manipulated them into making "free will" decisions for their own good without them having the slightest idea what was going on. I did it a million times. :) It's not bad at all since they were happy for your approval of their having made the right decision, even if they couldn't begin to explain how they arrived at it. :) I think God does the same with us all the time.
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?
The literal experience of the person. Robots have no feelings, make no independent decisions, and have no reason. Humans experience all of that, in full, regardless of what is going on behind the scenes.
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?
No, they are not meaningless because they are required for entry into Heaven. If I announce today that I am saved, and then spend the next 40 years sitting on my butt, then I'm not going to Heaven. If I hit a home run and then refuse to run the bases, then the run doesn't count. Same thing. The deeds are very meaningful, and they are promised by God. The deeds will necessarily flow from the new heart that God gives us. There hasn't been a recall yet, and every new heart produced has turned out good fruit. :)
And not only are our good deeds beneficial to ourselves, but also obviously to the rest of God's creation. For example, God uses our good deeds to awaken more members of the elect.
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.
Oh I couldn't agree more. Our pastor preaches urgency every single week. Getting right with Christ is nothing that should be "played". :)
God changes our nature by giving us a new heart. We are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). But left behind is a remnant of the old nature which is why we continue to sin even as believers. It was obviously God's plan that we continue to grow through sanctification for the rest of our lives after belief. If we had been transformed into perfection at the point of salvation, then that would have been moot. It is not a matter of an incomplete job. The complete job was to have us always striving towards Him. Mission accomplished. :)
St. Paul doesn't think there is a "remnant," 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]
Do I take it that you now officially recognize Paul as the author of Hebrews? LOL! :)
In any event, Paul is the one guy we can be most sure about in knowing that man is never devoid of sin. Paul himself openly admits that even after his personal experience with Christ and his total conversion he still sins:
Rom 7:15-19 : 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing.
Paul is fully saved when he says this, so if this isn't proof positive that Paul believed in the remnant then I don't know what is. :) Paul's use of "perfect" obviously does not equal "sinless".
I would argue that the Protestants broke away because of the invention of "new stuff" and returned to the inspired scriptures from which the church was founded. The eastern church, otoh, never developed the theological concepts to guard against errors. It isn't surprising that the Greek and Latin Churches today are so similar. After all, there are only so many errors to go around.
Faith, hope, belief is not a proof. If I say I believe, I don't have to prove anything. If I say I know for a fact, then proof is required.
FK: Yes, God is sovereign and in full control of His creation. God's will is always done
FK: And not only are our good deeds beneficial to ourselves, but also obviously to the rest of God's creation
If whatever you do is done by God then it's not "your" deed, FK. You can't get "credit" or punishment for something you have not done of your own will.
Exactly. The proof is in the fruits. Love produces fruits of love, and hate fruits of hate. Love cannot be proven with words; only by deeds. The Church certainly has plenty of that to go around.
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.