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.
No, you misunderstand what is being said.
God does good.
We do evil.
God does only good.
We do only (spiritual) evil.
God good.
Man bad.
God's will-good.
Man's will-bad.
God must change us from doing our will (spiritual) evil to doing His will (spiritual) good. That is why we are being made into His likeness-to do good. There is no corner. It's black and white.
Are you seriously saying that the Sermon on the Mount (and the Lucan Sermon on the Plain), in the midst of thousands of people hearing Jesus preach is only directed to the elect?
What about the other verses? Are you simply going to ignore them? My point is that the Marcionists amongst us preach a gospel of mistinterpreted Paul and ignore the bulk of the Gospels, including direct quotes from Christ.
Are you, by your silence, agreeing at least somewhat with me?
Firstly, let us clear up the point about married priests. The Latin rite has married priests. It is less common than the Orthodox, but they are there.
Married men may be ordained to the diaconate as Permanent Deacons, but in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church generally may not be ordained to the priesthood. In the Eastern Catholic Churches and in the Eastern Orthodox Church married deacons may be ordained priests, but may not become bishops. Bishops in the Eastern Rites and the Eastern Orthodox churches are almost always drawn from among monks, who have taken a vow of celibacy. They may be widowers, though; it is not required of them never to have been married.
In some cases widowed permanent deacons have been ordained to the priesthood. There have been some situations in which men previously married and ordained to the priesthood in an Anglican church or in a Lutheran Protestant church have been ordained to the Catholic priesthood, sometimes sub conditione (conditionally), and allowed to function much as an Eastern Rite priest but in a Latin Rite setting; however, this may only happen with the approval of the priest’s Bishop and a special permission by the Pope.
I believe that there are fewer distractions away from the duties of a priest if unmarried. I have had this conversation with several married Anglican and Lutheran clergy and privately, they each have told me that they have felt a little envy sometimes that the unmarried Catholic priests can devote more time, energy and thought to their calling.
Ideally suited? I suppose that that is like the rule that some states have that nobody can use a cell phone whilst driving. Some can use a cell phone just fine. But many cannot and that is why the rule is there. Remember, though, the Church does make exceptions for suitable individuals. Does that answer the question?
“Their theology and liturgy is identical. You are comparing apples with oranges.”
From this web site there seems to be major differences, not just the calendar, between the different Orthodox denominations, just as in some Protestant denominations:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/differences-various-Orthodox-Churches.htm
“the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches r almost in full communion. there r serious attampts to acheive full communion between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches.
the main reason both families r not in communion is the conflict that took place after the council of Chalcedon. there r two views about the nature of Christ; the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian.
The Chalcedonian understanding of how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus is that the two natures (divine and human) are united in one person (Christ). This view, known as the hypostatic union, became the official theological understanding after it was endorsed by the Council of Chalcedon.
Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is the christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one “nature” (”physis”), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.
Miaphysitism has often been considered by Chalcedonian Christians to be a form of monophysitism, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches themselves reject this characterization, a position which the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have begun to take more seriously.”
You may be interested to find out all those things that Calvinists follow that are not laid out in the Bible.
If you are a Reformed, you follow many traditions of men, including the very books of the Bible that you consider inerrant. You attend worship on Sunday and do not keep the Saturday Sabbath. You worship the theology of the elitist.
If you are non Apostolic, then, because the Church Fathers are irrelevant, you are open to entertain all the heresies declared anathema during the first 1500 years of the Church.
And make no mistake, the Reformation, the Restoration and the cultic explosion of the 20th Century have reformed and restored nearly all the old heresies and developed some of them to new lows in Christian theology.
I would have to agree. Please consider:
So, yes, I would have to agree with suzy that the Sermon on the Mount is directed only to believers, in particular His disciples.
Oh, details, details. Quit bothering with details. ;O)
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (Psalm 119:18; Psalm 138:2; II Tim. 3:14-17 )”
Which Scripture? The Old Testament. It also does not say Scripture alone. Non sequitur.
Christ is the head of the Church, certainly. The vicar of Christ is the Pope. In His wisdom, He created an institution on Earth to carry on His teachings and bring the Good News of Salvation to all the world. Not just a chosen few. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not a motley collection of prideful men.
God sends His Grace to the whole world, not just a chosen few. “ 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.” Indeed, it is so. All of us.
“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.” Yes, all nations. All men, except those who by word or deed reject Christ.
Why does God command us to take petitions to Him? If you roll back through this thread, we have several strong Reformers that deny that the Lord’s Prayer is petition. Do you say different here? If so, what is the purpose of petitioning the Lord if all is predestined?
God has predestined all to Heaven; it is only those who choose to deny Him that choose hell.
I have read the Bible - and more of it than you have, since you have an abridged version. I think that I am clear on much of it; I study and have recourse to the Magisterium where I am either cloudy or wrong.
The Reformed have resurrected the old heresies of Gnosticism (innate knowledge) and Marcionism (elevation of Paul above the Gospels); different Reformed appear to have incorporated several others according to their whim.
If your Bible was complete, you would have more than adequate instruction and explanation about praying.
God did not write the Bible, in effect or not.
He inspired the writers of the Bible, both OT and NT, to write down the best that they could, and inspired the Catholic Church to choose the contents and order them.
Martin Luther, inspired Scriptural Vandal, chopped some out and was prepared to eliminate most of it, resurrecting the Marcionist heresies which still prevail to this day amongst many of the Protestants.
Christ had to go through death on the Cross and Resurrection, certainly. Why do you guys think that we minimize it? Remember that we’re the ones with the Crucifixes. We are reminded of it all the time.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit does not reside in the non regenerated?
I certainly wouldn't argue with unmarried priests having fewer distrations and it is what Paul tells us in scripture. But the Church making "exception" is a far different thing then allowing priests to marry. We know there are a vocal group of priest who would like the marry that the Church has refused to allow. There really is no theological reason and, yes, that does answer my question.
A Protestant who believes in confession (as a Sacrament)could receive it in a grave situation since none of the Protestant churches have the sacrament of confession, making it impossible for him to approach one of his own ministers for it.
The only thing that the Reformation did was to restore many of the old heresies and develop some of them to new lows.
There was never a serious intent to return to primitive Christianity. The power and money and ego trips were far too appealing. The nobles that backed the Reformation were counting their riches before the Reformation really got underway. And that’s how it spread through the Protestant countries in Europe. It was a revolution of the nobles, not a return to the primitive Church.
“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.”
Not if you’re a Marcionite Gnostic, my friend. If you combine that with your favourite revolving heresy of the day, there’s no telling what theology you can concoct.
“Protestants have managed Satan’s goal; from 3 churches prior to the reformation to tens of thousands today. Perverting God’s word one infailable interpration at a time.”
Wisdom, my friend. Would that this mustard seed grows and reaches some of our brethren.
Did you answer my question about them?
Are you, by your silence, agreeing at least somewhat with me? LOL. I have a RL2.
How long did it take to make enough copies of all the NT works in order to disseminate them amongst the various church locations? Hundreds of years. There was no Gutenberg. There were not thousands of people sitting down and copying the works out by hand - most Christians were poor and illiterate and could not copy them with their own hand; neither could they afford to support those who would.
Secondly, there were many other works that were NOT included in the Bible that were also distributed and read. If the Catholic Church didn’t decide what was the Bible, then we’d still be saddled with:
14 more Gospels
15 more Acts
and 6 more Revelations.
Think about it in terms of 1st Century civilization and technology, rather than 21st Century information gathering and distribution.
By ‘double predestination’, we describe the theology that people are either destined to heaven or hell and that’s where they go period. The Reformed seem to step very lightly around this idea.
We believe that God doesn’t simply sit back and do nothing for any man. The idea of limbo here on earth is a strange concept that I haven’t heard of before.
We are instructed to bring the Gospels of Jesus Christ to the world. It’s our mission. What God does with those who haven’t heard is beyond our understanding. We don’t know. Same as unbaptized children. We don’t know.
All we know is what we’re instructed by Jesus.
Thank you for providing the bible verses in your post. A common thread throughout Jesus’s teaching is his instructions to his disciples. Consider the miracles. Why did Jesus perform miracles? Who was His primary audience? Jesus often spoke in ways that the general audience could not understand.
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.