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.
Thank you redgolum. I often get the impression that some people think the ancient Jews lived in a vacuum.
All of latter-day Jewish demonology comes from the Persian influence. The struggle between the good and the evil comes directly from the Ahura Mazda-Akhriman dualism. This is where the belief in Armageddon comes from. Judaism knew nothing of this before the 5th century BC.
The resurrection of the dead was likewise alien to Judaism and the introduction of such innovations was the prime basis for the formation of rleigious-political parties such as the Sadducees and the Pharisees and Essenes. They all believed in different things within Judaism. Although they don't call them 'denominations' that's precisely what they are.
“Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this” +Isaac the Syrian
And +Basil the Great tells us why these passages were written, “It is because fear edifies simpler people.”
I agree. Hosea is also known as the 'first allegorist' which is obvious from most his chapter 13. But there are some very un-allegorical statements there that are difficult to read into.
You know I always defer to the Church, but it is also true that the Church does not take the time to explain how is it that the OT God says things Christ would never say or teach.
There is only so much that we can take "just because," or at least there is only so much that I am willing to take. If you know the explanation, or if you have Patristic writings on this subject showing that this was really the same Christ speaking, I would be very happy. But, as it is, I don't see Christ in Hosea 13 or in much of the OT hwere cruelty is attributed to Him.
Something's got to go. If the Church can't provide an answer that doesn't look good, does it? And saying that these passages were intended to edify simpler people just doesn't cut it, Kolo. Sorry.
The sad part is that the OT is full of all sorts of 'divine' cruelty that is anything but what we have in Christ of the Gospels, and the Church remains absolutely silent, never talks about it, and never comments on it, just as with the Revelation. It is simply not addressed.
Iplying that it's too difficult for us "simple people" sounds more like an excuse than a reason. Try me.
There were many, many, different strains of Judaism in the first century. The whole fight between the Sadducee's and Pharisees documented in the New Testament were in many ways the fight between the Hellenized Jews (the Pharisees) and the more Babylonian Jews (the Sadducee's). When you get the Essenes and other end of the world sects, things get real interesting trying to figure out what the Jews of the time were expecting of the Messiah.
Well, I guess the Bible has always said to me that Christianity is a global faith. When Jesus said to make disciples of all nations, that meant to me that Christianity was intended to transcend regional exclusiveness and culture. It meant that His word and teachings would be meaningful to people all over the world, etc. That sort of thing. IOW, in the OT "the faith" was pretty much exclusive to the Jewish nation. I thought that the NT changed all that.
Yes, and most peopleare not aware of this, just as most poeple are notaware of the different pagan religions surrounding Judaism that espoused similar or even identical beliefs.
The whole fight between the Sadducee's and Pharisees documented in the New Testament were in many ways the fight between the Hellenized Jews (the Pharisees) and the more Babylonian Jews (the Sadducee's).
Big time. The Sadducees basically did not believe in resurrection. Some claim they didn't believe in angles (God's messenger, malak), but that's not true because the Sadducees considered the Torah to be the most sacred writing of all biblical books, and the Torah is full of refrerences to angels of God.
When you get the Essenes and other end of the world sects, things get real interesting trying to figure out what the Jews of the time were expecting of the Messiah.
Apocalyptic Judaism is a post exilic phenomenon and is manifested among the Essenes and followers of Christ. The Pharisees had seven criteria for the "annointed one" (messiah), and all seven had to be met. Jesus meets one out of seven!
Incidentally, many words and phrases that are used in Christian vocabulary originated in Judaism under somewhat different meaning. Aside from the most obvious, such as the Messiah or the Spirit of God, the Jews used the phrases such as "the Kingdom of God is at hand [near]" or "the world to come" whose meaning is different from the Christian rendering.
Also, after Christ's death, there were many different strains of Christ followers. It is a myth that these groups were all on the same sheet of music. Their differences became exaggerated by the end of the first century, when the first real enocunter begins to take place between the "orthodox" and the "heretics."
I was referring to the general Halakha, of which the mitzvot are only a part. I'm not an expert on this, but here's a wikipedia article: "According to Rabbinical Jewish law (Halakha), only a convert or a child born to a Jewish mother is counted as Jewish." Apparently there are a variety of modern views on the matter.
Not only the Greeks, but all ancients believed man carried the "seed" which contained the entire human being. The women were the "soil" in which such "seed" can grow or not grow. The concept of "fertile" asnd "barren" women is related to that.
All the ancients? When I read the Homliy on Ephesians that Kolo posted earlier, I took special notice of this (mostly because it so contradicted the ideas of the earlier Greek pagans):
Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that the three are one flesh. Thus then are we in relation to Christ; we become one flesh by participation, and we much more than the child. And why and how so? Because so it has been from the beginning. [emphasis mine]
So (to avoid generalities): By the fourth century there was AT LEAST ONE person espousing this wonderfully Christian teaching. Now the question is: Who else taught this and how far back does it go? I don't know; that's why I'm asking.
And no, I do not "think the ancient Jews lived in a vacuum," nor did I say anything to suggest I did. But nor do I accept a priori that they believed exactly the same things as their neighbors. Thank you for the information you provided. But again, this is all a moot point, becuase:
ZS: Either way, Christians are not beholden to a Jewish interpretation.
Kosta: No, of course, not. We tell everyone else they are wrong, but apparently we lack decisive skills or proof to convince the rest of the world that we are right and everyone else is wrong. Now how Christian is that?
Oh, please! That has nothing to do with what I said. I said "Christians are not beholden to a Jewish interpretation," NOT "Jews are beholden to a Christian interpretation." Who is this "we" you are talking about? All I am qualified to do is say what I believe. In fact, it's your Church that claims to be infallible. If you have issues with that, take it up with them.
Yet we find it perfectly "fair" if God preordains multitudes to hell?
Again, who is "we"? I'm not a Calvinist.
In His humility, God offers Himself to the devil in exchange for our souls. Death accepts the offer and when Christ appears in the Hades, Death realizes that He is God and cannot keep Him, and is thus utternly rendered powerless and is defeated.
Yup, that's the general idea!
Apparently no one seems to have read the Jewish Encyclopedia article which tells us in no uncertain terms that as far back as Hosea (the 'first alleogirst') allegorical interpretation was alive and well and that both Alexandrian and Palestinian Jews used allegorical interpretation, albeit on different premises. [emphasis mine]
You mean that different groups of ancient Jews had different views and interpretations, just like modern Jews do today? I'm shocked, I tell you! :)
And the point is that after 2000 years, they all still read it differently than Christians (who, as this ridiculously long thread has repeatedly shown, tend to differ in perspectives as well).
***The Sadducees basically did not believe in resurrection. Some claim they didn’t believe in angles***
Also known as the “Straight Line” Jews. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself :>)
Kolo: I know that, Kosta. Obviously I should have put a /s on the comment.
I'm glad you cleared that up, Kolo, because I was wondering about that myself. "Simpler people" like me often have trouble recognizing and appreciating sarcasm. :)
“Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense... those who have a mind understand this” +Isaac the Syrian
And +Basil the Great tells us why these passages were written, “It is because fear edifies simpler people.”
Yes, and it does tend to lead us "simpler people" to appreciate more fully the following, final chapter of Hosea:
Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God. Your sins have been your downfall! Take words with you and return to the LORD. Say to him: "Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips. Assyria cannot save us; we will not mount war-horses. We will never again say 'Our gods' to what our own hands have made, for in you the fatherless find compassion." "I will heal their waywardness and love them freely, for my anger has turned away from them. I will be like the dew to Israel; he will blossom like a lily. Like a cedar of Lebanon he will send down his roots; his young shoots will grow. His splendor will be like an olive tree, his fragrance like a cedar of Lebanon. Men will dwell again in his shade. He will flourish like the grain. He will blossom like a vine, and his fame will be like the wine from Lebanon. O Ephraim, what more have I to do with idols? I will answer him and care for him. I am like a green pine tree; your fruitfulness comes from me." Who is wise? He will realize these things. Who is discerning? He will understand them. The ways of the LORD are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them. (Hosea 14)
One last thing:
It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.
Even this has a Christian interpretation, for as you said, Kolo:
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated! Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
And so we truly say (even those of us who aren't Orthodox), "To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!"
But I'm not going to lie: Reading stuff like that makes me sick to my stomach. But it is such a CONTRAST to the passage that follows. So I'm sorry, I don't know what to say. I don't like to think of Christ hanging on the cross, either, but the Good News is that it doesn't end there.
It’s all because of sin. The Good news is that Jesus takes away our sin. Praise God.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Rabbincal laws are Talmudic laws. Talmud is based on Mishna (200 AD) and Gemara (500 AD), the oral tradition (Torah and rabbinical commentaries—similar to our Patristics), and is synonimous with rabbinical Judaism. Besides, it is only Orthodox Judaism that is matrilinear.
This is not the same Judaism as the pre-70 AD (destruction of the Temple) Judaism. It is understandable that bieng in disaspora the Jews had to make sure they did not become assimilated, so the rules were changed.
Again, you are concentrating on the post-Christian Judaism and ignoring biblical facts, namely that many a porminent biblical figure was married to non-Jewish women, and one at least continued to worship Baal.
“”Simpler people” like me often have trouble recognizing and appreciating sarcasm. :)”
Likely it was the Levantine subtlety which threw you!
As for you folks being simple, well, I’m the one with goat “skatah” on my shoes, the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants. I find you Western types marvelously sophisticated, especially when it comes to religion. :)
The final chapter 14 of Hosea repeats the same theme repeated throughout the bible: repent and your sins will be forgiven. The fundamental difference, however, between the Old and the New Testaments is how God brings people to repentence. It's like night and day. But we can pretend that it's not...but, then, we can also pretend that the emperor has clothes.../s
What ecumenism?
Rome has never budging one inch on the Biblical truth of Sola Fide. Until they agree we are saved by faith alone we will never have one thing in common.
I take this as good news. A lot of protestant churches were caving in to Catholic Dogma and now the "Pope" has set things back to being closer to what they really are.
There is one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.
Catholics believe their church affiliation with save them, not a relationship with Jesus Christ.
The Catholic church "eliminated" thousands of Anabaptists and other "non-true believers" because of this very issue. Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone.
Please keep offending protestants so they will stay away from your belief system.
The issue of "female seed" is a complex one. The expression "sowing the seeds" infers deposit. It is obvious that, although a woman produces eggs (discovered in the 19th century), it is both a soil for the sperm and, as a fertilized egg, also a seed which is to human eyes implanted into nutrient-rich uterine tissue especially prepared for such event. The idea that man was the seed and woman the soil comes, obviously, from that which was viisble.
Indirect evidence of the Hebrew belief that it was man's "seed" and woman's "soil" is given in the bible in the story of Onan, which is used as the basis for prohibition of onanism or masturbation because it represents "destruction of the seed."
No parallel prohibition addresses women in that regard because the woman doesn't "spill" her "seed." The woman is not "sowing" anything, but receiving the seed. Furthermore, the way the Hebrew bible refers to woman's pregnancy is the way it refers to fertilization of plants. The ancients saw that a tiny seed contained the whole plant (mustard seed parable) and that all one had to do was to put the seed into the soil to gte the nutrients it needed to grow into a complete tree.
The fact that some Greek philosophers postulated male and female "seeds" and their mixing is no different than some who postulated the existence of atoms (indivisible particles) that make up matter, or who have been remarkably right, 500 years before Christ on other things, such as the fact that our genetic material is combined to give a new human being (mixing). But they were not biblical beliefs.
Obviously in the late 4th, beginning 5th century AD, some Greeks, such as +John Chrysostom, believed in "mixing of the seed" but that's not to be found in the bible.
Talmudic (Christian Era) Judaism speaks of a three-person marriage: God, man and woman. The man, they posit, provides the white aspects of one's body (such as bones and eyeballs, and the woman the dark and red one...and God, of course, provides the soul. So, we see that even though Judaic concepts have changed in diaspora, they were still pure speculations.
The ancients were still remarkably perceptive because a fertilized egg is implanted into "suitable soil" in which it can grow. Obviously, some believed it was man's "seed" that was directly implanted into the woman's "soil" while others believed (probably based on the fact that some people resembled their mothers!) that the "seeds" had to be mixed and united before being implanted.
I was unaware that as early as 5th century BC some Greek philosophers advanced the latter idea, so my statement that all ancients believed man was the seed and woman the soil, is not universally true but seems to be true for the pre-Christian era Jews.
Your history is wrong. It was a Protestant, Zwigli, who began persecution of Anabaptists. The Lutheran "divines" as well as Catholic Church continued in tandem to exterminate this group all over Europe and England.
Lol, the Greek version of "May you live in interesting times"!:)
No, we believe that the Church, founded by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, provides us with the fullness of divine Revelation and the sacraments or mysteries, which provide us with the grace to live in accord with His will. Showing up at Mass is great, but merely warming a seat is not a ticket to salvation. IOW the Church teaches us who Christ is and provides a conduit for His graces. He, of course is not limited to working only from with in His Church, but if you want to get well, a Hospital is usually the place to go...
BTW, Tolkien was a Catholic :)
“Lol, the Greek version of “May you live in interesting times”!:)”
:)
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.