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.
"Whatever our Saviour would have us read of his actions and sayings he commanded his apostles and disciples, as his hands, to write." -- Augustine, (De Consensu Evang. 1:ult.)... The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, far from being an invention of Martin Luther, is taken for granted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and is a point agreed upon by the writers of the patristic age...""...The earliest Christians had the Apostles with them. The Apostles wrote down the revelation, so that it might be available when they were gone...
AMEN!
Perhaps an "unfortunate" (accidental?) choice of words? Hmmmm....I don't think so. Perhaps it's the ancient way of saying "directly" (i.e. "live"). We can even rationalize that the burning bush was not the "face" of God, ....
Yes, all of that is possible. All we can know for sure is that whatever "God's face" means, that is what we do not get to see. Consequently, all the examples of seeing God in the Bible do not include "God's face".
The point is that our "understanding" of God has nothing to do with knowing God. This was the point of the hesychastic fathers and the entire Palamite doctrine (against western scholastic approach), who argued that it is not through academic and intellectual reasoning that we ascend to God, but through prayer ...
I don't see why we can't use all methods given to us by God to become sanctified. Certainly no one can argue with prayer, but why is this at odds with knowing God better through His revealed Holy word. To me, anything that develops the relationship should count toward "knowing God".
We can't figure God out, FK. He is a Mystery, eternal unknown to our intellect; the hesychastic fathers called Him "darkness" (where our mind cannot reach), beyond comprehension. All we have are His manifestations, and even they are miracles of their own kind (Incarnation being the chief among them, Holy Trinity, etc.).
I would have to disagree with these fathers. It sounds like they are saying that since we can't know everything we shouldn't even bother to know what God intended to reveal to us. In order to have a relationship, one must know facts about the other. Obviously, that isn't all there is to it, but I can't love someone if I know nothing OF that person. Knowing OF the person is very helpful to KNOWING the person. It sounds like the hesychastic fathers are only taking a single approach.
Many will say "Lord, Lord", and He will say "I never knew you". This is not going to be said to pagans, but to presumptive Christians!
Actually, rather than to ... presumptive Christians (whom Christ would have known at one time), ... it appears that this will be said to those that Christ never knew.
That would have to be persistent unbelievers.
Why would a "persistent unbeliever" say "Lord, Lord" and perform miracles in the name of Jesus (and the other things mentioned in Matthew 7)?
I am sure that there will be persistent unbelievers who will call Jesus "Lord" and will claim to done great things in His name ... certainly once they see that the tide has turned against them.
These are unGodly folk who will have no compunction against lying for their own gain ... or to avoid loss.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.Was the scripture in this verse, written?
WRONG. Gnosticism would be saying WHAT you KNOW gives you eternal life. Friend, you aren't even keeping your heresies straight while trying to accusing me of being one!
The passage means what says. May, might, possible, etc. The only one who knows your everlasting future is God.
You need to make up your mind, friend. You can't say on the one hand that Scripture presents the possibility of knowing that you have eternal life (and I'd LOVE to have you provide any Catholic scholar that presents the "you" in 1 John 5:13 as referring to God), and then call me a Gnostic heretic for saying that the passages says exactly what it says...that those things were written that YOU (the recipients/audience) may KNOW you have eternal life.
Your zeal to brand me a heretic is leading you to make patently absurd arguments.
God is the Judge of your soul, not me. All I can do is to compare your confession to what the Church has already identified and defined as heresy. Self identification.
If you're going to presume to label me a heretic (which consistency would demand you leave to the CHURCH to do instead of presuming to do so yourself), you should at least operate from a correct definition of the heresies you are ascribing to me.
Yes, it’s in Genesis.
All of which are testified to in the NT by Jesus or the apostolic eyewitnesses.
“Your dating is off by several hundred years, maybe as much as 1,300 years.”
I do so love being preached to by Western Protestants, especially when its about the Fathers. Tell me what bible college teaches about 3rd century sola scriptura.
“You do know of Wycliffe and Hus don’t you?”
Couple of 14th century Western heretics as I remember it, products of the Roman Church. Heresy is pretty common. Before the Great Schism it infected the entire Church, but most especially in the East. After the Great Schism the problem moved West were it appears to have taken root and flourished, especially since the 16th century.
“Unless of course you have your own definition of Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura”
Proof texting the Fathers?!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL; OR, is there a consensus patrum on sola scriptura and if so, what is it? :)
I know it’s in Genesis. My question is, was that part of Genesis already written when Abraham was alive?
Proof texting the Fathers?!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL; OR, is there a consensus patrum on sola scriptura and if so, what is it? :)
What difference would a consensus patrum make? In the end you are looking to a group of men to tell you what you believe.
The truth of Scripture is self evident or it is not.
You know, I was in a hurry, pressed the button, ran into the showers and then realized that I was off in La-La Land with that response. While it was a brillant response, it had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with your question to me. I didn't get back to it until now.
I can't find any evidence that Calvin believed in infused righteousness rather than imputed. Just to be clear on what we're talking about:
The Protestants say God does not justify us on the basis of anything in our heart, but solely upon the basis of the goodness in the sinless life of Jesus.
Whether God gives man this righteousness of Christ or God sees Christ instead of us, the righteousness that God sees is Christ. It makes no difference although I would insist it is still imputed righteousness. The real difference is that Catholics believe this grace that God infuse in us can run out and needs to be recharged like a battery. Calvin in no way supports this.
A man who has nothing to learn has learned nothing.
Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters. For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man. He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword." -- Job 33:12-18"Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.
“What difference would a consensus patrum make? In the end you are looking to a group of men to tell you what you believe.”
All the difference in the world, WF. Its what determined what you read for scripture, for example.
“The truth of Scripture is self evident or it is not.”
If the several thousand interpretations of scripture Western Christians advance is any evidence, I’d say it isn’t self-evident at all...not even close.
Amen.
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" -- John 10:25-27"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Do all Christians read about and believe the same miracles that Christ performed? Probably. So we're not really arguing about the validity of Scripture; just the interpretation.
Thus even the RCs believe in Sola Scriptura, although they are loathe to admit it.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?Mat 7:22
Are you saying this is spoken to atheists and those who actively reject Jesus as the Christ? I don't think so, brother! Jesus is clearly correcting those who only HEAR the Gospel and do not OBEY it. Faith without works is dead. This has nothing to do with pagans, but rather, the self-righteous who think they are already going to eternal glory just by hearing the Gospel.
Regards
I don't think it is the grace that "runs out", but rather, man's response is incomplete. At times, we grieve the Spirit, despite the graces God gives us. Our spiritual journey is not a straight line to heaven, as anyone who has begun to walk it would know. God grants more to those who accept His gifts and use them (parable of the talents, for example). Note the last gent who did nothing evil, or good with what he was given. He was considered a wicked and foolish man.
Regards
We don't believe in Sola Scriptura. We do believe in Prima Scriptura, however. There is a difference. By accepting sola Scriptura, one chooses to make himself the infallible interpreter of Scriptures, which clearly makes very little sense. We are dealing with God's Word, not on scientific theories and why the Dolphins lost last week's football game.
If anyone believes that Christianity is a religion of revelation, then it strikes me as odd that people rely on themselves to decide what this revelation is. We are servants to God's Word, not the other way around. The Rheims Bible has the following censure and approbation:
We come to the understanding of Scriptures through the poverty of spirit; where a man must show himself meek-minded, lest by stubborn contentions, he become incapable and unapt to be taught.
It continues in the Preface:
Only (saith he) the art of Scripture is that which every man challenges. This the chatting old wise, this the doting old man, this the brabbling (hair-splitting, quarrelsome arguments), sophister, this on every hand, men presume to teach before they learn it. St. Jerome.
And again
...who stepping from secular learning to holy scriptures, and able to tickle the ears of the multitude with a smooth tale, think all they speak, to be the Law of God. St. Jerome.
Apparently, the problem of interperting the meaning of Scriptures by the individual self-proclaimed expert is not a new problem. False teachers remain.
Regards
Was that gift of grace taken back by God?
And this is why it becomes more clear each day that the RCC truly and actively denies the work of the Holy Spirit and hands over that responsibility to its magisterium.
The fact that some men may misinterpret the word of God does not negate the fact that individuals are called to read and study the Bible, knowing they will be led by the Holy Spirit in all truth and light if it is the will of God to so lead them.
"Search the Scriptures."
I don't see any postscript saying only the priestcraft can search and thus interpret Scripture.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" -- Mark 12:24
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." -- Acts 17:11
And they will tell you that the Bible does not say "right theology" saves you. Belief that Jesus is the Messiah does.
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.