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.
Then you must be a Protestant.
LOL!!
List of Ecumenical Councils
I. First Council of Nicea, (325); repudiated Arianism, adopted the Nicene Creed.
II. First Council of Constantinople, (381); revised the Nicene Creed into the present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.
III. Council of Ephesus, (431); repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God (Greek, ????????).
IV. Council of Chalcedon, (451); repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of Monophysitism, described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed. This and all following councils are not recognized by Oriental Orthodox Communion.
V. Second Council of Constantinople, (553); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings.
VI. Third Council of Constantinople, (680-681); repudiated Monothelitism, affirmed that Christ had both human and Divine wills.
Quinisext/Penthekte Council (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo, (692); mostly an administrative council that raised some local canons to ecumenical status and established principles of clerical discipline. It is not considered to be a full-fledged council in its own right because it did not determine matters of doctrine. This council is accepted by the Orthodox Church as a part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, but that is rejected by Roman Catholics.
VII. Second Council of Nicaea, (787); restoration of the veneration of icons and end of the first iconoclasm.
Well, it just so happens that I have spent a lot of time in dialog with Catholics and I do not simply go about tossing charges of idolatry around. But thank you for holding your gripe with some against everyone.
And thank you for admitting that you do not in fact have any intention of carrying on meaningful dialog here.
It tells us to observe specific traditions; i.e., those learned from Paul.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 2Th 2:15 Therefore *, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
This does not say that we are to accept any old tradition that happens to come down the pike. It says that it has to come from Paul.
Since the Thess letter was penned in the neighborhood of the early 50's AD, and since Jesus was crucified in ca. 33 AD, we are talking about an entire 17-20 years of teachings and practices that were handed down. Since Acts was written later than Thessalonians, as were other letters, we can be assurred that we have the entirety of necessary traditions from those 20 years included in later books.
I. First Council of Nicea, (325); repudiated Arianism, adopted the Nicene Creed.
II. First Council of Constantinople, (381); revised the Nicene Creed into the present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.
III. Council of Ephesus, (431); repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God (Greek, ????????).
IV. Council of Chalcedon, (451); repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of Monophysitism, described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed. This and all following councils are not recognized by Oriental Orthodox Communion.
V. Second Council of Constantinople, (553); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings.
VI. Third Council of Constantinople, (680-681); repudiated Monothelitism, affirmed that Christ had both human and Divine wills.
And you think that Protestants reject all of these councils??
The biggest obstacle is the misleading reporting done by the main stream media who totally botched the report on this document. I cannot help believing it was done on purpose to cause division among Christians and rancor against the Catholic Church and against Pope Benedict XVI.
Many Catholics are angry with the Pope and for no reason at all except that they believe the stupid media.
My pastor wrote a short article on the subject which was printed in our local Catholic newpaper last week. It reads as follows:
Is There Grace Outside the Catholic Church?
So did the pope really say, as stated in the St. Cloud Times article (July 11, 2007) that “Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation?” Did he further insist as an article in the Star Tribune said (July 11, 2007), “that other denominations do not hold ‘the means to salvation’”?
Well, the very short answer is, No, the pope did not in any way say these things!
What these articles are referring to is a recently released document from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, entitled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.” This very brief document simply attempts to answer five questions that the congregation says have arisen from the theological discussion on the nature of the Church following the decisive ... renewal of Catholic ecclesiology in the years since the Second Vatican Council.
In regards to the above quoted statements, what does this document actually say? To begin, it states very decisively that as Catholics we affirm “that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.” The document does not claim that there are no means of salvation in other Christian denominations, quoting the Second Vatican Council document, Lumen Gentium (8.2). Not only that, it makes clear that “there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’” found in them.
Finally, regarding other Christian churches, this new document restates Catholic teaching, again quoting the Second Vatican Council (Unitatis redintegratio 3.4) saying that they “are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
Though as Catholics we do indeed believe that in the Catholic Church is found all the means of grace Christ intended for his people, these means of grace are not entirely lacking in other Christian denominations and, in fact, these communities are used in many powerful ways by the Holy Spirit to bring people to salvation.
One has to wonder how those responsible for the articles quoted above could distort so badly the message of this short and rather clearly stated document. It can only be hoped that our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Christ, yet not fully within the Catholic Church, will take the word of the Church on what it believes and not the distortion offered in the secular media. [end of article]
So, I hope you readers will understand how badly the news media distorted the message. As a lifelong Catholic I have never been taught that persons outside the Catholic Church could not be saved. Likewise, my parents allowed my siblings and I to associate freely with persons of all faiths without discrimination. I will also say that throughout my life I have been edified by persons of other faiths who personify goodness and holiness in their daily lives. I think that everyone ought to respect persons for who and what they are and how they behave and not by labels.
So far the only person to mention "idolotry" on this thread has been YOU
well they’re constantly yammering about what we feel is ‘infailable’ and the only things we consider infailable are those 7 councils and Holy Scripture.
And the only way you feel you can correct them is to insult them back?
It wasn’t based on Peter and the others drawing straws, either.In the matter of Matthias, "Peter and the others" explicitly acknowledged that the choice of apostles was God's to make, not theirs:
Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs."(Emphasis added) Acts 1:24-25
hey i thought you were busy mischaracterizing the well known definition of protestant (hey if i can’t cast aspirsions on protestants by throwing wacky things like shaker and quaker you can’t widen the definition to include eastern churches)
generally these aren’t in the form of insults, more often then not they figure the orthodox are all Roman Catholics. certainly on a related thread i’ve seen the councils called ‘RC History’...
Did I say you couldn't do that?
some other information:
http://www.st-francis-lutheran.org/ncr990910.html
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/justification/justify_1.htm
So, when you pointed out that you weren't Roman Catholic, Marlowe jokingly said that must mean you're Protestant (hence my "LOL!!" in response).
well it’s a joke that should be directed to folks in the know then...
Ahh, yes...the Augsburg Concession. :)
i’ve certainly been criticized before for lumping anapatists like the quakers and shakers into protestantism (though i’m still confused why they wouldn’t be they were as influence by the ‘reformers’ as anybody...)
As to the question of the necessity of apostolic succession to be a true church, let us turn to the Scriptures themselves. First as a precedence we can see the hierarchical priesthood established by God in the Old Testament. While our Lord railed against the scribes and Pharisees, he never denied the authority of the Temple priesthood. Rather, he implicitly acknowledged their authority when he told the lepers to go to them. Even when he cleansed the Temple he did not question the authority of the priests to offer sacrifice but sought to purify the activity of the Temple. Indeed, the Holy Family fully participated in the Temple services. Thus an hierarchical priesthood per se cannot be antithetical to God's organization of the Church.
Now let us turn to the New Testament.
Did Jesus Christ establish an hierarchy among his followers?
Yes. A clear distinction can be made between the Apostles and the rest of the disciples.
Did these Apostles exercise any authority beyond that of the disciples?
Yes. They alone were possessed the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, forgive sins, anoint the sick and give the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Did the Apostles exercise this authority after our Lord's Ascension?
Yes. It was also to them that the Church recognized as its leaders.
Was the authority of the Apostles a true office that continued beyond the first Apostles?
Yes! The very first thing that the Apostles did when our Lord ascended into Heaven was to chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.
Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric (episkophe / episcopacy) let another take.This episcopal office would be divided into the offices of bishop, priest and deacon:Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
(Acts 1:16-26)
A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.How was this office transmitted to others?
(1 Tim 2:1-10)For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God.
(Tit 1:5-7)
Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.Thus an ordained priesthood is a part of our Lord's constitution of his Church. Whatever they may possess, the Protestants do not possess the episcopacy/priesthood instituted by our Lord and handed down through the laying on of hands. They thus are acting contrary to the constitution of the Church as established by Jesus Christ and shown forth in the Scriptures. This is a strange position for those who claim sola scriptura.
(1 Tim 4:14)For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.
(2 Tim 1:6)For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.
(Tit 1:5)
Really? Wow...what can I say! :)
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.