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 when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:17-18 KJV)
This conversation is going nowhere. You may have the last word.
No thanks.
:)
God is like a sports fan??? The sports analogy I drew was designed to illustrate that obedience requires specific intent as to a particular person or entity. A lost person is incapable of having specific intent to obey God, therefore, he cannot, no matter what he does. The saved person, however, IS enabled to obey God and does so with worship, prayer, good works, etc.
I do not know if God will accept me into Heaven; the Lord knows that I hope and that I am doing what I can. I don’t have indwelling knowledge, or a get out of hell free card. I don’t think that they exist.
I first want to associate myself with MHG's excellent comments in 6,364. The story of Nicodemus is a perfect example of how Jesus was trying to teach us that we may have assurance.
Second, I agree with you that there are no "get out of hell free" cards. What Christ did for us certainly was not free. He paid the ultimate price by becoming sin for us. What He went through has tremendous value. (I know we differ greatly on how valuable His sacrifice was.)
Third, I just wanted to note that your not having assurance in no way speaks to your actual salvation (in our eyes or God's). Here, not accepting what we would call a truth does not negate that truth. So, NONE of us Reformers and other Protestants around here (whom I've seen) would ever say that because we "know" we're in, but because you don't, you're out. That doesn't follow our theology at all. Assurance is available to all believers, but it is not required for entry into Heaven. We sort of "have" to say that because when many of us first became true believers (including me) we did not have true assurance.
That is exactly what I would say about the RCC, so I am led to believe that you did not mean this in the way I took it. :) My understanding of the Apostolic view is that the Holy Spirit specifically guides the hierarchy of the Church on the most important matters, but forsakes the laity of the same leadership. However, here you have the Spirit not even leading (with certainty) your hierarchy. Is this really the case? When I consider the rulings of the early Church, should I consider them all to be "man-made"?
God gave His authority to the Church; rather than the whims of individuals.
God LENT SOME of His authority to HIS Church. And I would agree with you that God did not give His authority to the whims of individuals, such as the Pope speaking ex cathedra. :)
The Orthodox Church did not need reforming. No one was selling indulgencies. Besides, he was keenly aware of Patriarch Jeremiah II's reply to Lutheran advances less than a century earlier.
Because anger is not His unchanging essence. Sovereignty is not Who God is but what He is, relative to His Creation.
And do you not think that, out-of-context, presenting the views of an apostate Ecumenical Patriarch embracing Calvinist heresy as "orthodox" would be soothing to me? Please check the log in your own eye first.
lol. For someone who presumes that God is only love, you display an astounding contempt for your fellow man
You can't sugar-coat heresy, Dr. E. I have no contempt for poor Lucaris. I merely stated that he sold his soul and died before his was killed. I hope he repented before that happened.
Now, as for my statement regarding Lucaris selling his soul to the devil, I merely rephrased what Patriarch Dositheus said at the Council of Jerusalem (1672), which you apprently didn't read:
My understanding of the Apostolic view is that the Holy Spirit specifically guides the hierarchy of the Church on the most important matters, but forsakes the laity of the same leadership.
You know the reply would be along the lines of "That's like saying God forsook the ears by not giving them the faculty of taste." Same notion, different slant on it. We'd appeal to the "diversities of gifts/one and the same Spirit" part of I Cor.
In the "gave v. lent" dispute I'd go with "delegated".
And I would agree with you that God did not give His authority to the whims of individuals, such as the Pope speaking ex cathedra. :)
If you review the exercise of the "ex cathedra function" you will find that it is anything but whimsical. (I note the smiley; just being pedantic here ...) Seriously though, the ramp up to the promulgation of Immaculate Conception and the Assumption was, viewed dispassionately, as extensive and bureaucratic as imaginable, or so I read. There were petitions from the laity; advice as taken from many many theologians and bishops, and all that.
J.R. Neuhaus has expressed the idea of Infallibility elegantly, thus: The Church will never require one to believe what is not so. I mention all this to provide an alternative spin to the very idea of one man getting a wild hair. And as I said, when one considers the character and piety (or lack of either) of some Popes, the effect of the doctrine is a lot like the effect of my windshield suddenly becoming virtually opaque as I was hauling sheep on an interstate (hard to explain why, but it was in any case a brief problem): It did wonders for my prayer life, at least temporarily. We are relying entirely on God to keep his promise. It may look like were relying on Popes, but, while some Popes are indeed saintly, enough aren't that they throw us back on God.
Wherefore it is written:
Surely it is God who saves me.[Not much anyway ....]
I will trust in Him and not be afraid.
The Lord is my stronghold and my sure defense
And He will be my Savior.
If Mary is the "Mother of God," then God did die. One cannot have it both ways.
Mary is the mother of the incarnate 2d person of the Trinity, and the incarnate 2d person of the Trinity did die.
tap dancing
Welcome to the spiritual abyss of our separated brethren. Not only did God kill Christ (God), but God really did die! Wow! And they say they are Christians (in a Trinitarian and Christological sense). You are forgetting that mere labels mean nothing. Protestantism is the mother of relativism. Add to this the way they treat the Scriptures, relegating the Gospels to something "within" the Bible (actually quite rarely used compared to the OT and St. Paul), and you have the complete package.
The idea that God "killed" Christ is intimately tied to the Pauline construct that God raised Christ (mentioned in numerous instances in his Epistles). You will notice that the Creed says otherwise (He rose). Thus we have here a hidden Christological conflict (Romans 8:11 says "the Spirit of Him who raised Christ"), which is never addressed.
For if God "killed" Christ, then God also raised Him, is a logical sequence. And some wonder why Gnostics find St. Paul so dear and near to them, and where the Protestants get their Christological and Trinitarian ideas from!
All Christological heretics treat Christ as secondary to God, even though He is also divine, but subordinate to the Father, the way a prince is royal but not equal to his father, the king. The king is always in control, even over other royals.
This mindset is reflected in the belief that God "killed" Christ. Christ could not die because He willed it, but because the Father willed it! And the Father raised Him because someone who is "dead" cannot raise Himself! It's all very "logical." (as if Incarnation is "logical!")
Now you are beginning to fathom the unbridgeable divide that exists between the Church and the apostate communities. It's good to get out every now and then and see what's going on in the world.
Christ died in His human nature because He willed it in His divine nature. No one killed Him.
Mary is the mother of the incarnate 2d person of the Trinity, and the incarnate 2d person of the Trinity did die
The Incarnate Word never ceased being divine, but assumed human nature in addition to His divine nature, without confusion or mixing. He never suffered or died in His divine nature.
And?
You obviously didn't read my post correctly. In my quick analysis on the word "hate" as it is used in scripture, it is 1) used by God in reference to man attitude towards Him, and 2) our attitude towards others who hate God. Because man hates God (which is the essences of everything that is good), the wrath and vengeance of God resides on him. This is original sin.
The question then becomes how can man love God? Catholics feel men can cooperate in this love through His grace. But how is this possible? There is no way for man to love God. Love is a gift from God (1 Cor 13).
Your author taints his view with his insistence of free will. He makes the serious error of assuming man is capable of loving God; denying our condition and original sin. It also denies the clear truth in scripture that God doesn't hate man but man hates God. Man cannot manufacture love or cooperate for God, although some try.
Free will is a grave error. It minimizes the work God must do for us and it gives us abilities and characteristics we don't really have. All mankind is under the judgment and wrath of God. God must change our hearts to love Him through His Son.
Swim the Tiber? No thanks. I'll stay on this side of the shore.
Somehow these guys seem to be unable to say that Christ died for their sins.
“Who took his life from him?”
Gen. 22:8, “And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.”
John 1:29, “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
When Jesus was here on earth, He did physical things all the time; He walked, spoke, taught, etc.
God’s interference on earth now is much more subtle. He created and left His Church in order to speak, teach, etc. So therefore, everything except for His direct actions (miracles etc.) could be considered to be man made.
In the same way, the Bible writings were man made, the Bible assembled was man made, the writings of the Church are man made and the Church doctrines are man made.
We don’t say that the Holy Spirit forsakes the laity; we say that individuals are more prone to Scriptural error than the deliberative body that we call the Magisterium. We do not say that the Holy Spirit does not influence or direct individuals, we just work harder to keep them on the straight and narrow theologically. Look at the Church Fathers who strayed. Augustine and Origen, to name two.
We don’t think of God as lending authority since it implies that He would take it back.
There is a difference between dying for somone's sins willingly and being killed for someone's sins. Besides, it's not biblical.
[E]veryone shall be put to death for his own sin. [Det 24:16, 2 King 14:16].
The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. [Eze 18:20]
Are you saying that Christ sinned?
If Christians can be sure of salvation, why did Paul pray for mercy on behalf of Onesiphorus?
If Paul hopes for his own salvation, it must mean that he wasn’t sure of it. Rom 8:24-25
He definitely wasn’t sure about his own salvation in Phil. 3:11-14
If Peter wasn’t, and Paul wasn’t, how is it that the Elect are sure?
Oh no, anything but that!!!!
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.