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.
I don't particularly care what you do, as I do not care one whit if someone is a Catholic or a Protestant or whatever they want to call themselves as long as they claim they are bought by Christ. I am a Christian first and foremost. The salvation of men does not reside in any man or group of men. It resides in Christ and Christ alone. I do not look to my Church for my salvation. I look only to Christ.
It seems to me that you place most of your hope in your membership in the Orthodox Church. You seem to believe that it is that membership that has saved you. That may not be the impression that you want to leave, but that is the impression that I get from reading your posts.
The Church of Christ is bigger than your exclusive little club. You may not like that, but that is the truth. Believe it or not, there are Lutherans who are Christians. Get used to the idea. Your going to have to spend eternity with a whole bunch of them and you may even end up occupying a mansion next door to Luther.
The Catholic Church agrees. That is why it denies the claims of Apostolicity of the Churches of England and Sweden, and the Methodists. These three Churches do not share the Catholic faith. Therefore, any Bishops they might have are not sucessors of the Apostles.
Duh.
Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. (Acts 13.1-3)
What the RCC gets so wrong is that Christ has always been leading His flock homeward throughout the centuries. And this He did in spite of the error fostered by the church in Rome.
"For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." -- 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." -- 1 Corinthians 1:2
Christ told us to "Be not afraid; only believe" (Mark 5:36). The simplicity of that is profound. And yet the RCC embroils Christ's clear instructions with so much gilded deflection as to make it almost unrecognizable. At some point, all that intentional misdirection becomes outright error for which it will be held accountable.
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God... And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders. And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4;8-11"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Language is imprecise; men deceive and are deceived; traditions change with time and circumstance. But the word of God and the power of God remain perfect forever.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18
They do, and it is one of the grounds for condemning the Protestant and Old Catholic Bishops with their obsession on episcopal lineage.
Catholic and Orthodox Bishops do not worry over such things because they know by the very fact of holding the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Faith that they are Bishops of the universal Church.
Is that truth kept hidden in some secret vault, or has the Orthodox Church seen fit to share that "whole truth, the full truth and nothing but," with the rest of Christianity?
Is your salvation dependent upon your membership in the Orthodox Church?
“Did these Apostles exercise any authority beyond that of the disciples?” Let’s see, Thomas, Matthias and Paul weren’t there when this supposed “authority was given. The seventy that were sent out in Luke 10 exercised this authority so when was it given to them in it’s final form?
“Did the Apostles exercise this authority after our Lord’s Ascension?” So did James, the Lord’s brother, Jude, the Lord’s brother, Philip the Evangelist, Barnabas and Silas, Apollos, Timothy, Titus, along with Paul.
“Did the Apostles exercise this authority after our Lord’s Ascension?” As did James, the Lord’s brother, Jude, the Lord’s brother, Paul and Timothy.
“Was the authority of the Apostles a true office that continued beyond the first Apostles?” By the time John writes the last letters to the seven churches, around 95 A.D., he doesn’t even identify himself as an Apostle even after a gap in the time period of writing 65 A.D. to 95 A.D. and he has been exiled for most of that period, nor does he identify any one in the churches as Apostles or having authority as successor to Apostles. What you had is Pastors of city churches that later elevated their office to give it more dignity than what the first seventy enjoyed when the Lord first sent them out without money or more than one suit of clothes or motel reservations.
Most Catholic and Orthodox parishes around the world simply say "St. So-and-so's Church" or "Church of the [Fill in the Event in the Life of Our Lord]"
It is unnecessary to label the Church further because every man of common sense knows that these are parishes of the universal Church, and that only heretics require detailed signs out front.
Now the Church is called Catholic because it is throughout the world from one end of the earth to the other. And since the word Church is applied to different things ... the Creed states for the sake of security the article, "And in One Holy Catholic Church"; that you may avoid their (the heretics') wretched services and ever remain in the Holy Catholic Church in which you were regenerated. And if you are staying in any city, do not ask simply where the Lord's house is (for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own places houses of the Lord,), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechectical Sermons, AD 340)Under the apostles, you will say, no one was called Catholic. Granted! But, when, after the apostles, heresies had arisen and were attempting, under various names, to tear apart and divide the dove and the queen of God, did not the apostolic people require a special name to distinguish the unity of the people who were uncorrupted. ... Suppose this very day I entered a large city. When I had met Marcionites, Apollinarians, etc., who call themselves Christians, by what name should I know the congregation of my own people unless it were named Catholic? .... Christian is my name, but Catholic is my surname. The former gives me a name; the latter distinguishes me ... Wherefore our people, then named Catholic, are separated by this appellation from the heretical sects. (St. Pacian AD 370)
We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church which is Catholic, and which is called Catholic not only by her own members, but even by all her enemies. For, when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly [velint nolint] they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard. (St. Augustine, The True Religion, 7.12, AD 390)
And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own house or basilica. (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani called `The Foundation', 4.5, AD 397)
The naming of a Church after a saint indicates to whom the Church is dedicated and under which saint its protection is entrusted.
I sincerely doubt that the First Lurtheran/Calvinist/Wesleyan Church is dedicated to those men.
-A8
8~)
Work with me on this one. We’ll settle accounts later.
"What they wrote" does not in itself determine what is the teaching/doctrine of the Apostles. Otherwise there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denominations.
Which of the Protestant denominations accurately represents the Apostolic teaching/doctrine?
-A8
Moreover, by what authority is that question answered?
However, having been given the same charge as St. Francis Xavier, I feel the need to comment on many of the issues brought up here.
First, in regards to whether or not real, physical, human succession is important, I would direct those who claim it is not to Acts 8:14-23.
14Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
19saying, "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
20But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
21"You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.
22"Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.
23"For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity."
24But Simon answered and said, "Pray to the Lord for me yourselves, so that nothing of what you have said may come upon me."
Baptism isn't simply enough to receive the authority, as we can see here. The believers had been baptized, but they needed those who had received the Spirit on Pentecost to confer their authority. Ergo, I would say that the authority of the apostles was essentially to becoming a True Church.
Similarly, we know that Jesus had many followers. However, not all of them were gifted with the Holy Spirit. Instead, he had chosen others specifically for these positions of leadership. It was not simply a communal congregation talking about Jesus and doing works according to his teachings; there were clearly those in positions of power and leadership. However, the positions they were put in forced them into leadership roles which were unheard of at the time. Much like many Jews sought a King or Warlord Messiah, and, as such, would not recognize the Suffering Messiah, Jesus appointed Servant Leaders, a tradition which continues today and the Church recognizes; one of the titles the Pope goes by is "Servus Servorum Dei" - Servant of the Servants of God.
Now, some Popes were certainly terrible human beings. I don't think many Catholics are in rush to defend the deeds committed by some of the Medici-era Popes. However, personal failings do not directly relate to the legitimacy of an office, even the Papacy. Catholic teachings say that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of Faith and Morals - backroom political deals, underhanded schemes and murders all are terrible acts, but they are NOT official teachings.
On the issue of signage, it is nitpicking on all fronts IMHO. While I certainly believe that Orthodox, in its historic usage, denotes Right Belief (as contrasted with orthopraxy, Right Practice, which, again IMHO, is more Christian). Lutheran simply denotes those believers see Christ and His teaching in Luther's tradition. I think it is wrong, but I don't believe it makes them "un-Christian".
Now, this is my argument which I have yet to hear a strong answer to. Is there a natural Hierarchy in this world? I would say yes; I firmly believe that Man is the summit of creation on Earth, that Angels exist and are higher beings than us, and that the various Choirs of Angels have various ranks. Further, I believe certain people have greater gifts, talents, and responsibilities than others.
This does not take away from the true equality we have - we are all made in the likeness of God, and with that comes inherent dignity. However, it is a very modern concept that all Mankind is completely equal, without a natural hierarchy. I am very Platonic in my beliefs on Government as provided in The Republic - there is a natural order, with some meant to lead, others meant to guard, and others meant to produce. I think that our Republic, while the finest government man can likely realistically have due to the Sin of Adam, is not ideal, by any stretch. Watching some of the TV shows which demonstrate, I am sorry to say, the complete ignorance of the voting population (try watching Leno's Jaywalking segments, stuff from The View, or anything similar!) shows me that I do NOT want everyone to vote, although I believe they should have the right, which they should be wise enough to exercise cautiously.
To make it more blunt, I believe that God gives men certain talents, two of which are wisdom and leadership. I do not believe these are doled out equally. As such, I believe the Holy Spirit works within the Hierarchy of the Church, which mirrors the Hierarchy of All Creation, in order to preserve truth and teach definitively on Faith and Morals. Hierarchy is natural, present in His Creation, and the Reformers insistence on Sola Scriptura without definitive teaching goes against that order.
There, tear me apart :-D Just do it with Charity, true Christian love ;-)
Also, I won't be responding to any replies, but hopefully some others will take up my cause - I will be away from my lurking post for awhile on some personal business, but I've been thinking this for a long time, and finally this thread pushed me to post.
Acts 13
1 Now there were at Antioch, in the church that was there, prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus.
Now, I have a REALLY long post somewhere that may have gotten lost - I messaged the Religion Moderator to find it, so, please, before you respond, wait for that and read the first half over, since it brings up my theological musings on authority. :-D
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.