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.
And that is particularly true regarding the opening of the Gospel to the Gentiles by Peter at the house of Cornelius. The Gospel that they preached opened the door to the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles and it remains open to this day.
And there is no evidence that those keys ever left the apostle's hands and were passed on to anyone else, except for the Gospel and their writings.
Pastors in churches all had the Scriptures in their hands which they used to open the door to the kingdom of heaven to all who wanted to enter. Those were the keys and they still are.
To those who claim to some other exclusive set of keys, I ask: Show us. Prove it. Otherwise:
Whoso boasts himself of a false gift is like clouds and wind without rain [Proverbs 17:20].
It is always a delight to read your posts, AG. They boldly stand for the position that the individual must listen to the Lord and all that He has spoken before listening to any human.
There is also an additional source of guidance, also scriptural, and we biblical Christians will miss some of the Lord's intent if we don't allow it to affect our lives. The Lord truly does speak to us through the brothers and sisters in our Churches.
Just wanted to add a few thoughts to your outstanding post.
Our RC & Orthodox friends do us a favor to remind us that The Church is not just an incidental hanging around the New Testament. The Church, the Body of Christ, was also given as a guide and help for us in discerning the will of the Lord. We are right not to turn that gift of the Church into an institution of oppression. At the same time, though, we shouldn't prevent it from having the biblical influence that it is supposed to have.
Blessings, Sister, on your day. Grace, Peace, and Strength.
You got 'em right...Clement and Polycarp.
You're right to an extent, although we have to be cautious about being saying "everyone is a little right" when it comes to history. For instance, although Augustine had a somewhat anomalous view on justification, it still didn't reach the levels to which the Re But I'm not so interested in prooftexting on this thread. What I am interested in is examining a historical assumption that comes with Protestantism. Namely, the Church used to be a certain way, and then it was corrupted into Catholicism.
Whatever else we tease out of them, the Fathers don't support such a view. There's no grand battle fighting "paganization" within the Church. There's no sense of a losing fight against Constantinian/pagan influences. There is continuity. There is succession.
Sorry...I meant above “still didn’t reach the levels which the Reformation ascribed to it”
No, Jesus Christ taught that--we simply pass on the true faith as recorded in the Gospels. And notice that when Jesus gives the power to forgive sins to His Apostles it is surrounded with "peace", not nervousness.
"Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you." When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
Thank you Jesus!
I didn't ask that question. My question is: Which denomination or group is most accurately teaching the whole of the Apostles' doctrine?
So far, your answers have been circular; you have not pointed to a particular group of persons. So it seems to me that you are in a state of not knowing concretely who is most accurately teaching the whole of the Apostle's doctrine.
-A8
I didn't say "everything". Unless we are completely agreed on doctrine, we are not in line with 1 Cor 1:10. (There's more to it than just doctrine, as I explained here, but doctrinal unity is a sine qua non of fulfilling St. Paul's exhortation of 1 Cor 1:10.)
-A8
Your argumentation begs the question. Who gave you the authority to say that your interpretation is right and that of the Catholic Church is wrong? Who has the authority to speak on behalf of Christ in defending His Holy Word? Not me, not Dr. Eckleburg, not any other human--but only the Holy Spirit through His Church: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you." (Jn 15:26).
The Holy Spirit didn't leave the Catholic Church in the 1500's.
Jesus said: "Thou art Peter (Cephas--rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus also said to Peter, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you [plural--Apostles], that he may sift you [plural] as wheat: But I have prayed for thee [singular—Cephas only], that thy faith fail not: and thou [singular], being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Lk 22:31-32).
Thank you Jesus! "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of everlasting life, and we have come to believe and to know that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God!" (Jn 6:69-70).
Because you are using the same gnostic methodology to justify your theological position. If we remain unaware of the *fundamental* causes of the errors of the heretics, then we will not be able to see whether we are heretics as well. For example, if you have spent significant time dialoguing with Mormons about theology, then you know that the appeal to the "burning in the bosom" trumps all your exegetical efforts. The person has fallen into a epistemic pit, and in order to reason with him, you first have to step back from the discussion of the plausibility of Mormonism, to a discussion of the "burning in the bosom" method of discerning truth.
Your constant appeal to "if God gives you ears to hear and eyes to see" is just very same epistemic pit into which the Mormons have fallen. It is a recurrence of Montanistic gnosticism. To see the problems with it, you have to encounter (or become aware of) all the people who make use of this very same method, and yet who come to completely incompatible and radically different conclusions. Once you see that, then you realize that that method is not reliable in itself apart from a more concrete test of truth.
But according to the word of God, the magisterium is riddled with errors.
According to your interpretation of the word of God.
Your present mode of theological reasoning hides from itself the fact that you are interpreting the Scriptures. As long as you remain oblivious to the fact that you are interpreting the Scriptures, you will remain unable to see that you are misinterpreting the Scriptures.
-A8
You have pointed to the third argument of the article as legitimately calling into question Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church: to quote from the article 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.
The Apostles and the their successors were busy teaching and writing and baptizing--they were trying to win the world for Christ through the Gospel. So it is no surprise that the early Church didn't have many chronicles written by what we call historians. Lists weren't important--although we do have the complete list when it comes to St. Peter and his successors in Rome.
At any rate, apostolic succession is evident in the very writings of St. Paul to St. Timothy (who received his ministry as Bishop by the "laying on of hands"--St. Paul ordained him 2 Tim 1:6). "Therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace which is in Christ Jesus; and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trustworthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others." (2 Timothy 2:2)
St. Clement, the third to succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome writes:
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
It is noteworthy that in the early Church, when St. John the Evangelist was still alive, the Church in Corinth (which had its own Bishop) appealed to the Successor of St. Peter—Pope St. Clement—to settle a dispute. Apostolic succession and authority.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing on high in Christ." (Eph. 1:3).
Please pray for me, and be assured of mine. God bless...
Thank you for sharing all of your insights. And thank you for that perfect passage of Scripture!
And thank you for your encouragements!
And we must always remember that Christ Himself is the head of the body and love God above all else:
God would never teach us such a lie.
Well, that's pretty much what God teaches...And just because you don't believe it doesn't make it a lie...
Jesus, nor Peter, nor Paul created the Orthodox church, or the Catholic church, or the Presbyterian church...
Paul didn't create the Roman church...He created the church, at Rome... How do you guys miss that...
The church is people...Not a religion...
You can't be born into the church...You can only get into the church by accepting Jesus' death as the atonement for your sins...
Christians do not strive for the 'presence of Jesus'...Christians are in the presence of Jesus 24/7/365...
Multi-million dollar Cathedrals and religious rituals will get you absolutely nothing...
So who are the present-day leaders we are supposed to obey?
-A8
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit...
For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his...
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - from Romans 8
Trust God, love Him above all else and He will lead you, personally, whichever way He wants you to go - whether into the open field or into a particular sheep pen (assembly or denomination.)
And which human being has the Holy Spirit and is truly being led by the Holy Spirit?
Jesus' mother Mary didn't say much in recorded history (the Bible)...She is however an example...She was filled with the Holy Spirit...And she said,
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
She didn't say magnify herself...She didn't say magnify the church, or the dead saints...
She said, Magnify the Lord...
Psa 69:30 I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.
A Spirit filled person will magnify the Lord, and nothing else...
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.