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.
The difference, in a nutshell, is our answer to the key question:
The risk of choosing to believe anyone other than God Himself, directly and personally, is that of idolatry - putting something or some one ahead of Him.
But it is possible to believe a trusted religious leader or counsel while at the same time following the Shepherd. So it is not spiritually perilous to embrace doctrines and traditions of men - just the harmful ones.
I personally eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board. But that's just me. God may lead you in a different direction. He did not make us with a cookie cutter.
There is only one great commandment. Get it right and then the second commandment. The rest is "details."
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matt 22:37-40
The Orthodox also gave the establishment pen a 'wake-up' call.
LOLOL!
Oh, my. It must be wonderful to know exactly what God is doing with all us apostate people. Glad you aren’t MY judge.
I don’t recall saying anything with regard to the fate of apostates actually... only describing what they are currently doing, which is exactly what they’re doing.
I didn't make my point very clear. I was saying that I don't see why your doctrines aren't the doctrines of at least one (wo)man.
The difference, in a nutshell, is our answer to the key question: "Whom do you believe."
This would make more sense, but if you're saying the choice is God or "man" I'm saying that's not possible - because you are human, finite.
I do understand the intuitive capacity in episthemology. But it does not operate independently of of the spheres of sense and reason, it includes and transcends these. It is also not a guaranteed perfect instrument.
Therefore I think it's incorrect to say: "My doctrine is perfect doctrine because it is God's doctrine not my doctrine."
I hope I expressed this more clearly this time. thanks for your reply...
satan is not omnipotent. He’s not even potent because God still rules over him and he can do nothing without God’s permission. He’s a toothless lion but WE are the ones who give him permission to rule in our lives. Christians need to learn to disembowel the old deceiver.
I too have the gift of encouragement, but the other side of that coin is admonishment. People don’t like that side of it. I always thought I was bossy, but now I see it was that gift of admonishment (smile).
As I recall, kosta50 also discredits Paul and his epistles and
I do not discredit all of Paul. It's actually the historical and Gnostic Paul who does it to himself. It is also evident to those who actually read his Epistles on preserved documents, and notice that his purported later writings do not match the style and language used by him in earlier ones, thereby expressing reasonable doubt that he did not author the later ones.
embraces the Greek language word concepts – the Septuagint – as authoritative over the Hebrew word concepts
The Septuagint (with Apocrypha) was used in over 93% of the cases as the source of all New Testament quotes from the Old Testament. As such, it is clearly preferred by the very people (Apostles) whose writing even the Protestants consider inspired, yet reject their source.
Further, that he puts all Scripture under the scrutiny of the scientific method and therefore does not receive it as a whole, inerrant, revelation of God.
I believe D-fendr gave you a beautiful answer to that: the inconceivable is expressed in human conception. The indescribable is described in human words. The inerrant truth of God is expressed in various ways in the Bible, but the Bible was written by humans, whose language and concepts are limited and cannot describe or express perfectly the perfection itself.
Thus, the Bible is a book of inspired writings written by men, expressing bits and pieces of God's reveled truth, but in human language and with human concepts. The unlimited is by necessity of our own limitation limited, and stuffed into a human box, and therefore cannot be spoken of as literally inerrant.
That's why the East always approached the writings about God in an apophatic manner, by stating what God is not rather than the cataphatic approach, which tries to affirm what God is.
In other words, the net result is that kosta50’s theology is based on an interpretation over time – and thus, when he debates with us, he is “coming from” a worldview which is counter-indicative to many of us.
God's revelation was gradual and is therefore expressed gradually over time. God created time and even created his Creation in time and not in an instant (as St. Augustine believed "creavit omnia simul" based on his faulty translation of Greek, which he only knew marginally.)
St. Paul speaks of some of us as "babes" capable of only digesting theological "milk," thereby implying time needed for progressing to the fullness of faith (maturation). The holy catholic and apostolic Church has always taught that our own sanctification (theosis) is a process enveloped in time. The parable of the mustard seed iinvolves the time, and its should be obvious that our own salvation is a process, and not an instant as, I fear, our Protestant friends have been misled to believe.
Our to put it another way, kosta50’s theology is a “doctrine and tradition of man” per se
As is yours, no doubt. We all have a "base" from which we start, and yours appears to be almost pure epistemological solipsism, an extreme form of Gnosticism, and your pronouncements are fraught with syllogisms.
And herein lies a fatal flaw of that worldview: the apostolic succession took it upon itself to pick and choose that which was to be preserved and that which was to be discarded.
You discard the possibility that the apostolic succession—or for that matter any other act of the Church is—led by the Spirit, but you can show no proof of that, just as you can't show any proof that what you claim is "true" comes from the indwelling Spirit.
There is only one truth, not a rainbow of truths. If we see truth, we are united in it. Truth, like God, is indivisible. Not many shades, but one. Not bits and pieces, but whole.
The book of Enoch is a great example.
Yes it is. As it shows that fallen angel and other popular mythology that crept into Judaism and later into Christianity is of aprocyrphal origin. Although we know that both the Jews and the Christians rejected the book of Enoch at one point for narrow theological reasons, your own source states (my phases added)
Thus, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus had not only studied the book, but also respected it highly enough to adopt and elaborate on its specific descriptions of the coming kingdom and its theme of inevitable judgment descending upon "the wicked"-the term most often used in the Old Testament to describe the Watchers.
There is abundant proof that Christ approved of the Book of Enoch. Over a hundred phrases in the New Testament find precedents in the Book of Enoch.
Again, this is one book that Protestants never accepted along with other "Apocrypha," yet they include it (most of them in complete ignorance!) in their sermons by quoting from the New Testament, as inspired word of God! Yet they reject the Apocrypha!
I have made this point previously on many an occasion and received less than charitable reactions for that.
Obviously then, there is no assurance that all of the manuscripts of non-affiliated assemblies survived, perhaps some manuscripts declared practices of the succession, e.g. transubstantiation, to be an abomination. But how would we know?
This doesn't follow. The concept of transubstantiation, or more correctly, just change, is derived from the biblical understanding of sacraments, namely the change made by the Holy Spirit and Christ's own words "This is My Body..." and "Whoever does not eat My Body shall have no life in him."
The change is obviously not in the physical sense but in a state of matter as the change in our hearts is not a new physical heart, but in a state of our heart. And those who have experienced it will swear that it is as real as it can be. Thus, by the same mysery of our own changed hearts we believe that the change in the Eucharist, made by the Holy Spirit, is every bit real.
At bottom, each Christian must decide Whom he will believe – God or a counsel or a trusted religious leader, etc
No, that's assuming that the trusted religious leaders are not moved by the indwelling Spirit, but only the individual believer is. The message behind this is: one should trust only oneself and no one else (how can you trust the Bible then?), because only the proverbial I knows the truth.
This is solipsism at its best—the essence of Gnosticism. The ultimate narcissism. The ultimate me-me-me existence. It is self-love; self-righteousness; self-deification; selfishness personified.
Over the years I’ve run across some really capable minds on Free Republic....on all sides of issues, not necessarily my own. P-M is definitely among them.
P-marlowe, HermanntheCherusker, kolokotronis, winston churchill, orthodox presbyterian, jean chauvin (although I couldn’t stand him), ruy dias de bivar, alamo-girl, betty boop, patrick henry, jim robinson (of course), ward smythe, blue-duncan; scripter, john huang2, travis mcgee, howlin, red rover, dr.eckleburg; ears_to_hear, blueflag, thunder6, .... and on
where as when people admonish you their ‘judging’... (rolls eyes)
Jesus also believed in the book of Enoch, and taught from it. Do you?
Enoch was probably a cultural thing too... it’s still back on the Bible Buffet with the other stuff Luther didn’t like. heck James almost didn’t make it onto his plate...
“Jesus also believed in the book of Enoch, and taught from it”
Where do you find this in scripture?
I do not deny Satan's personhood. His name is not mentioned in Genesis, as it is in other parts of the Old Testament, where he is mentioned in person every time as an angel ("son") of God. Satan continues to the faithful servent of God of the Old Testament following Gensis and is obviously not the serpent (temptation) who was curesed as our enemy.
Temptation can assume many shapes and forms, but it is ultimately our giving in to it that results in sin. It is our damnation indeed. Our propsensity to fall for it, in lack of faith, is our eternal enemy.
You have to read more. use A-G's post 1348 for starters.
You can also read mine 1389 too.
More than cultural. Babylonian captivity and Zoroastrianism had a profound effect on Jewish beliefs, inlcuding demonology and apocalyptic messainism.
Freeper Investigation: What kinds of "Knowledge" exist, and how "certain" are the various types?
My epistemology is as follows:
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
And by your testimony, 3 and/or 8 would be ahead of 1 or 2 in your personal epistemology.
On the surface probably not, I will have to look into this more. But in principle yes. The Church always speaks of ever-present evil, teaches that we must blame ourselves first. So, the concept is there. Our resistance of "passions" and even "passion foods" is the reason behind rigorous fasting (no animal products; we have three 40-day fasts, we also fast fast every Wednesday and Friday, and have several other minor fasts, some 14 days or less, all in all about 180 days total in a year) The goal is: defeating temptation (i.e. resisting evil) by choice.
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.