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.
Kosta50, thanks for post #7.
Obviously Protestants aren't going to agree with the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's statement. While we share faith in Christ Jesus as true God and true Man, Savior and Redeemer of the human race (and I thank God that we do!), it would not be true ecumenism to "pretend" that we are all united on the points mentioned in the document. Actually the document does not set back ecumenism, it advances it in the sense that the Catholic Church is willing to put all Her cards on the table and talk about it. We believe what we believe because it has been handed down to us from the Apostles to this day.
I think that is why we are able to dialogue fruitfully with the Orthodox and that is, as Kosta50 pointed out, why we don't go to communion at each others churches--we have disagreements and we are dialoguing about them. Kosta50 and I both hope and pray for full communion between the various Catholic Churches soon.
Why is apostolic succession so important (and not just "spiritual succession")? It's not about bureaucracy, it's about valid Sacraments. If Jesus did not institute the Eucharist as His real presence and did not ordain the Apostles to "do THIS in my memory" and did not tell them "whose sins YOU forgive, they are forgiven", then the Protestants would be in the right: apostolic succession would not matter at all--just faith in Jesus. But if He did give Himself to us, flesh and blood, as the Bread of Life and set up a hierarchy and gave them power to forgive sins, then apostolic succession is most important even if their successors aren't so perfect. But the Apostles weren't perfect either, in fact one of them betrayed Our Divine Savior and many successors of the Apostles do so today (I'm not sure if it's one out of twelve today... it might be better or it might be worse!).
May the Lord give you His peace.
Really the Medici's can be traced back to the Apostles?
But our perspective is different in His presence. So when you weigh anchor from this mortal realm and go home to that great cloud of witnesses, I am confident you will see everything the same way Abraham does now:
And do any of those popes even remotely resemble Peter??? Or any of the other Apostles, or disciples???
Maybe it wasn’t he man who makes the job; just maybe it was the................popemobile.
http://www.worldcarfans.com/3050610.001/75-years-of-mercedes-benz-popemobile
I was thinking "Herod the Great."
I disagree, friend. It is not about the Sacraments. It's about authority. Let me explain.
Obviously you point to those portions of Scripture regarding your view of the Sacrament and its validity. Of course, as a Protestant I disagree with your interpretation of those Scriptures as supporting the notion that only a priest ordained within a visible institution headed by a successor of the Apostle Peter can rightly administer the Sacraments.
If I ask you why I should take your interpretation over mine, you will ultimately appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to rightly interpret those Scriptures and forumlate that doctrine.
If I ask where the Roman Catholic Church was institutionally granted such authority, you will ultimately appeal to Scripture (Matt 16:18, ect).
If I ask you why I should take the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of those Scriptures over mine, you will ultimately appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to rightly interpret those Scriptures and forumlate doctrine.
If I ask where... (you get the point)
All issues of disagreement between us will ultimately come back to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I say this in the spirit of your comments earlier in that post. There is little that will ever be gained by dialog between us until we address this issue head on.
1Co 2:9 - But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
The Apostle Paul agrees with you, sister. I am sure you are right. All things WILL work together for good for us Christians.
Are you suggesting there is circular reasoning going on?
How does one take on the circular argument that appeals to the authority of the RCC?
which makes me wonder how many protestants have ever stopped by to examine Orthodox worship which they harry from afar.
Who ordained Paul?
To be honest with you, I specifically went to both a Byzantine Catholic and an Orthodos (Russian immigrants) near Marblehead, Ohio in June to check out their worship.
I had hoped for matins or vespers, but both churches had only Sunday services, and I was there only through the weekdays.
I’ll get there eventually, though.
Holy Assumption in Marblehead says they have Saturday vespers...
http://www.holyassumptionmarblehead.org/schedule.html
that said our old oca church had to cut back on services as we had no priest (the OCA reassigned him and didn’t send a new one) eventually one who was more less retired offered to take up the reins and he travels about an hour on a very regular basis to manage...
the rocor parish we go to has 2 priests and usually has services saturday sunday and weekdays...
Nice try, PM. You forgot the Gnostics. Notice how you altered the argument and snuck in "your rleigion" instead of the "your church." Obviousy any congregation that believes in Jesus as some form of deity can say that its religion was founded by Christ, although you clevery exclude LDS and Christian Scientists, but include Jehovah's Witnesses (who deny Holy Trinity). Lord have mercy!
Do LDS not claim that Jesus is their Savior (Christ)? So, by what authority do you exclude them? Is Protestantism not the ultimate in church-creation based on individual "understanding" of the Bible, with each person being his/her own "pope?" Is this not the ultimate in narcissism? Is denying the combined widsomm of the Church and reinterpreting everything according to one's own fancy not the ultimate in arrogance and pride?
Changing church for religion doesn't change the fact that God gave His Church to His Apsotles in 33 AD, that He gave them the keys to bind and loosen, and that they bound others to carry in their steps ever since then. That authority was not arrogated to others at they wished. So, those who assume that authority do so on their own and cannot claim that it comes from Christ.
I was there Monday through Thursday at our denominational conference. I stopped at the church to see the sign, but saw they had only “Sunday” services. (I lumped the Sat vespers in with Sunday, considering it a “Sunday eve” service.)
It’s an attractive little chapel. The Byzantine, otoh, was right alongside the lake and had managed to purchase landed that was bounded on one side by a state park. They had a really attractive building and location.
I really had hoped that one or the other would be open.
They were deleted in the next post.
St. Paul says he was made Apostle of Christ. Apparently, at one point the other Apostles agreed, so it is possible that he was ordained by them. Regardess, I am not sure there is a Paulean apostolic lineage. But all Protestants accept his teaching as legitimate, probably more than others'. He considered his primary mission preaching the gospel.
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.