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.
Perhaps it is your side that is taking Jesus out of context. :)
“And you folks think mormons aren’t also protestants.”
Actually, they are probably closer to orthodox, what with all their mysteries, extra books, traditions, sacred space etc. As far as 20,000 denominations are concerned, I guess that’s the chance you take with “free will”.
there book is about as clse to real scripture as the chopped up one luther suggested and it was protestant societies that created the crazy sacraments they practiced (freemasonry for instance)
Christ founded one church satanists divided it into 20,000 pieces.
I think you need to TradeMark that sentence.
Ugh, I know. :( Well, at least the Rams are looking great for a really sweet draft pick next year! :)
“and it was protestant societies that created the crazy sacraments they practiced (freemasonry for instance)”
Like incense, icons, relics, hermits and Knights Templars? By the way, how many Orthodox denominations are there?
Would this be a "Sister Sola" moment? :)
There is either unity or there isn’t.
We must understand that in order for an institution to exist, there must be unity on certain disciplines. For instance, there must be a selected time of worship. Discipline. Any services are held in a unified style.
There must be an accepted style or manner of dress. Sacramental denominations practice the sacraments in certain fashion.
For example, we have cloistered nuns. They have a certain style of habit and are celibate. If you want to wear monokini thongs in public and have tantric sex in the backyard, then you don’t get to be a cloistered nun.
The Galatians could be looked at as having imposed church discipline upon their immediate church, sure. But what that is and the extent of it can go beyond the immediate church into the diocese or even to the Pope. For instance, if the church decided to hold Mass at 9:00, that is its discipline only. Requiring marital disciplines or Sacramental disciplines goes beyond the parish into the diocese or the College of Bishops, or Cardinals.
Circumcision would have been a matter beyond the parish, to be ruled upon by the Church, not the pastor or immediate clergy.
Outside of myself I DON'T know who is a true Christian. I just have educated guesses that mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. I don't "outcast" any other Christians, and I couldn't care less if others "outcast" me. I know in whom I believe. The guarantee is found in scripture and I can know if it applies to me.
What we’re talking about is whether priests should be allowed to marry. I got a lot of articles on how wonderful it is, yet no answer on whether you think Catholic priests are better than Orthodox priests simply because they happen to give up marriage. That is the only point I can determine from your articles as to why a Catholic priest should give up marriage according to the Church and I believe that is a wrong premise. I would suspect the Orthodox would agree with me.
That's a bit of an odd statement. Since when is it required of God to give men "free" will? God is very clear that our souls belong to Him, not us:
Bravo, Kosta. :) I can't remember the last time we agreed 100% on an entire post. I won't even ruin it by adding anything. :)
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.
Yes, that would only be fair. :)
Unless one of you lies, if you can’t be assured by his proof, you can’t be assured by yours - and vice-versa.
The only initial "proof" any of us can offer is our own testimony. 99% of the time that is plenty good enough for me to assume and treat another as a full Christian. Later, we can offer our works as evidence of a changed heart. The difference is in knowing with certainty what is in the heart, as that is the only thing that really matters. I can only know that about myself, as is the same with all people. I think this meaning is included in verses like:
Matt 7:1-2 : 1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
I think Christ is saying that it is fine to judge a man's actions, such as in a crime, but we should not judge another man's heart because we cannot know it for sure, especially in salvational matters.
While I believe that you THINK you are a true Christian, I am VERY certain that those who fell away ALSO thought they were "true Christians". I am talking about Protestant pastors who fell away from Christianity entirely. I don't think we can know the direction of our lives in the future. That is why we are told to persevere.
The guarantee is found in scripture and I can know if it applies to me.
The guarantee is only for those who REMAIN in Christ. I pray that you do so.
Regards
Those works were not accepted by the early Church as being inspired. It doesn't mean they are necessarily devoid of truth, just that they are not authoritative. I don't know what this would have to do with Calvin or Luther.
Christ did found one church, the body of Christ. All of us who believe and follow Him.
What sort of proof do you require? Is the Bible good enough? If it is, then that is what we use to prove that we all can have assurance. If the Bible is not good for proof in your view, then nothing can be proved in Christianity. I believe the Bible SHOULD always be good enough for proof as to other Christians.
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.
Everything that I do that is GOOD is of God. Everything that I do that is evil, that is on me. That said, you're right that the good is not "my deed" and I do not get credit. I just said that in a conversational way. They are "our" deeds as opposed to the deeds of other humans.
No, HD, kawaii is perfectly right. The Protestants DON'T all believe the same thing. There are 33,000 plus divisions in that self-made world. In your world of Protestant belief, everyone makes up in his or her head what is "truth." It's relativism. Nothing is absolutely reue and nothing is absolutely false. God is not relative, HD.
Having a bunch of men "vote" on what is or is not correct doctrine is, imo, hardly a perfect system. The Pharisees had the same method if you'll recall and used the same argument
And having a bunch of men/women cackling what each verse means is WORSE, much worse.
Interestingly, Jesus Christ never had one good thing to say about "oral tradition." He only rebuked it, knowing that it can be so easily manipulated by the doctrines of men. This looks like an interesting read, based on a Presbyterians debate with an Roman Catholic regarding Scripture... SOLA SCRIPTURA The Sufficiency of Scripture "Orthodox Protestants hold that it was God's intention that his Word be reduced to writing, doubtless because of a written form being more effective in preserving the truth. In regard to the Old Testament we see this intention in several ways but we will limit ourselves to the New Testament witness. 1. Writing to the Church at Rome Paul says: 'For everything written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope' (Rom 15:4). 2. To a chiefly Gentile church at Corinth he draws teaching from the Old Testament history affirming: 'These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come' (1 Cor 10:11). So the Old Testament was given by God with us in mind, as the quotations above show; how much more the New Testament! Indeed, the New Testament era is one characterised by further revelation in which the Word of God is being inscripturated. Thus Peter classes Paul's writings with 'the other Scriptures' (2 Pet 3:16). If we accept Augustine's dictum: 'The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed' we can see that the New completes the Old and gives us a completed canon of faith. At the same time we must not under-estimate the New Testament warnings of apostasy, and the signs of this already in the first century (cp. Revelation 2 and 3). This underscores the importance of the Word of God in written form and warns against making even early teaching or practices not warranted by Scripture normative for ourselves. The Word of God is the highest authority and by its very nature judges all other authorities. Accordingly, God's people are warned about adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). The only way we could lawfully add to the Bible was if we had further words from God given for this purpose. As Rome cannot provide evident words from God going back to Christ and his apostles, she resorts to claiming a supposedly infallible authority over Scripture, so as to prevent its proper authority over the church..."
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.