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.
KJV - 1Ki 20:42 - And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of [thy] hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. King James Version 1611, 1769
NKJV - 1Ki 20:42 - Then he said to him, "Thus says the LORD: 'Because you have let slip out of your hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.'" New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NLT - 1Ki 20:42 - And the prophet told him, "This is what the Lord says: Because you have spared the man I said must be destroyed, now you must die in his place, and your people will die instead of his people." Footnote: The Hebrew term used here refers to the complete consecration of things or people to the LORD, either by destroying them or by giving them as an offering. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV - 1Ki 20:42 - He said to the king, “This is what the Lord says: ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die. Therefore it is your life for his life, your people for his people.’ ” Footnote: The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them. New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV - 1Ki 20:42 - And he said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his people.’” Footnote: That is, set apart (devoted) as an offering to the Lord (for destruction) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB - 1Ki 20:42 - He said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Because you have let go out of {your} hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.' " New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV - 1Ki 20:42 - And he said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people.'" Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV - 1Ki 20:42 - And he said unto him, Thus saith Jehovah, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. American Standard Version 1901 Info
Young - 1Ki 20:42 - and he saith unto him, `Thus said Jehovah, Because thou hast sent away the man I devoted, out of [thy] hand, even thy life hath been for his life, and thy people for his people;' Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby - 1Ki 20:42 - And he said to him, Thus saith Jehovah: Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man that I had devoted to destruction, thy life shall be for his life, and thy people for his people. J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
Webster - 1Ki 20:42 - And he said to him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of [thy] hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
HNV - 1Ki 20:42 - He said to him, Thus says the LORD, Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people. Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info
Vulgate - 1Ki 20:42 - qui ait ad eum haec dicit Dominus quia dimisisti virum dignum morte de manu tua erit anima tua pro anima eius et populus tuus pro populo eius Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info
Alas, you and I are unmasked yet again!
BTW, here's the "r" I owe you.
Nuts. I'm slipping. 8~)
“You are in 1 Samuel 20:42”
Nope, I quoted you from 1 Kings 20:42 .
Both, my personal 1898 Bible and this one says the same thing
http://drbo.org/chapter/09020.htm
Must be old age creeping up.
In any case, the promise is salvation. It isn’t semi-salvation, pseudo-salvation, or revocable salvation.
I will keep trying. Bear with me. :-)
Thank you both. It's so nice to remember the gospel is not so complicated.
It's interesting when talking with those that don't know the gospel, when it is explained, they keep waiting for something else that they need to do.
I’m hear to help;)
“There is no “sacrament of reconciliation,” and I am unaware of any Christian denomination that does not observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”
Well, we observe the “ordinance” of the Lord’s Supper; Welch’s Grape Juice instead of wine and these teeny-weeny stale crackers instead of bread. Those are sometimes I wish I was a Presbyterian instead of a Baptist!!
Try 3 Kings 20:42
Now if we really wanted to do it right! We would pass the bread, then have a pot luck dinner (nobody beats the Baptists when it comes to pot luck) and after pass the wine.
“Now if we really wanted to do it right! We would pass the bread, then have a pot luck dinner (nobody beats the Baptists when it comes to pot luck) and after pass the wine.”
I know, but after Paul corrected the First Baptist Church of Corinth for their wild pot-lucks in 1 Corinthians 11 we have been paying the price for their fun with the grape juice and crackers. I always thought that each paid the price for their own sin until I saw how we Baptists just keep punishing ourselves for something our forefathers and mothers did. I bet they were dancing too, since we can’t!!!
lol. Well, at least it's not "sweet rolls" --
"...A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons...1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water..."
(Recall we learned in the above thread the RCC teaches that the "priest is another Christ.")
(I need a list.)
I here ya.
Man, nothing gets by you. ;-)
“lol. Well, at least it’s not “sweet rolls” —”
I was the interim Pastor for my church when we were looking for a real one a couple of years ago. I noticed that the congregation was getting too complacent during Communion and not really “actualizing” (i.e. getting into it) sooooo, instead of those teeny-weeny stale crackers, I broke up some great Portuguese rolls into chunks that couldn’t be just swallowed; but had to be slowly chewed. It took some time to get through the bread and by the time the Welch’s Grape Juice got there in large specimen cups rather than the little plastic communion cups, they were all convinced there was wine there. Alas, no miracle of Cana, but they all were alert and into it the next communion Sunday.
Wouldn’t that be:
I heerd it h’yer
Just think of it as bread and wine under the appearance of crackers and grape juice.
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.