Although the Vatican said Protestant denominations “cannot be called ”˜churches’ in the proper sense,” it recognized the Orthodox communities as true churches because they have apostolic succession and “many elements of sanctification and of truth.”
But it also said the Orthodox Church is harmed by the “defect” or “wound” of not recognizing the primacy of the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches separated nearly 1,000 years ago in the Great Schism of 1054.
The Rev. Paul Albert, pastor of St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Sylvania, said that from the Orthodox perspective, “We are a councilor body and no one patriarch speaks with infallibility. The authority is Christ, and he is in the midst of his church.”
He said the Orthodox Church has a different interpretation than do Catholics of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.”
“Peter was not in any way above the other apostles and that misinterpretation by Rome has been the source of a lot of problems,” Father Paul said.
Some church leaders see the latest controversy as a chance to promote their own beliefs.
Just as Catholics don’t consider the Southern Baptist Convention to be a church, “evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church,” said the Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., in an online blog. He is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.
This morning I attended Mass with my wife. Her church and mine have had a covenant relationship for nearly thirty years now, at times more active, at other times less, depending on the leadership. Every Sunday at Eucharist, we at St. Luke’s include in the Prayers of the People, prayers for St. Elizabeth’s our covenant parish.
I was struck this morning by the fact that in the Eucharistic Prayer at St. E’s, Fr. Joe included a prayer to God “for our Episcopalian and Lutheran brothers and sisters, with whom we covenant in this community.” I was also struck by the two hymns we sang at communion, both familiar to those of us who use the 1982 Hymnal: George Herbert’s “Come my Way, my Truth, my Life” and “Lord of all Hopefulness.” It was nice to have that Anglican touch.
After Mass I asked Maria if that was the first time Fr. Joe included the Episcopalians and Lutherans in the prayers of the Canon. Could this be a response to the CDF Statement, I wondered? She said he had used it before the Statement was issued. It is clear to me that he takes our local covenant seriously. So do a large number of older members of St. E’s, who sometimes study and serve in the community together with members of St. Luke’s. Many of our RC friends we’ve talked with found the Pope’s statement troubling, but also thought that it was written for internal consumption. I do find it hard to think of it as “an invitation to ecumenical dialogue,” as one cardinal put it.
Confusing practical cooperation and fraternal concern at the local level with Ecclesial Communion strikes me as a very Anglican thing to do, as does an appeal to the private opinions of individuals. However, the document in question purports to address Catholic ecclesiology, of which Eucharistic Communion is the the heart, and which transcends private opinions.
Among the Baptists I grew up with, “church” refers to the local fellowship of believers. I never remember hearing of the church as “the Body of Christ”, nor of any significance attached to the congregation, beyond good fellowship and support in one’s individual walk with Christ. From a Catholic, or Orthodox, or even Anglican perspective, that’s a very different meaning of “chuch”. I might add that the typical Baptist congregation displays much love and genuine concern for members, often more so than the typical Catholic parish. However, we are discussing what the various traditions claim to be, not what they are like.
Oh dear. I would have hoped that the Toledo journalist would have checked the spelling of conciliar. Instead we get this mis-quotation from the Orthodox pastor: We are a councilor body .
#3, Well, “councilor” does mean “member of a council”, though I do agree that the pastor most likely said “conciliar”.
Can anyone tell me if the Vatican considers the Anglican Communion, including ECUSA, to be acceptable in apostolic succession of the clergy?
I’ve never understood why anyone would join a religion which was not convinced that its own core, essential teachings were True. And that, of course means that other religions don’t have things quite right–are “defective” in some way.
As the son of a Methodist and a Catholic I saw this situation from the inside. My mother was a Methodist, her parents were Unitarian-Universalist, other great grand-parents were Quakers. Others in my Mom’s drect family line were Christian Scientists and two were Durch Reformed (now called by some other name, I believe) ministers
As a teen-ager seeking for Truth, all I could think of my mother’s Protestant family (although they were all very good people) was what a joke if you are seeking Truth. Either you must make yourself your own pope, or just embrace whatever floats your boat, or submit your beliefs to a majority vote by people who may be under society’s corrupt sway. All they had in common was disdain for the pope and Catholics and a determination to ignore all the many passages in the NT which featured the role of St. Peter. It seemed the Catholic concept of Christ’s words and Biblical events(especially those regarding St. Peter and the sacraments) rolling with power through the centuries under the impetus of the Holy Spirit , was beyond them. The only living, active word among them seemed to be protest as in “PROTESTantism.” It also gave me an insight into how harmful divisions are to Christianity. No wonder Christ prayed that all may be one.
As for apostolic succession, I believe Rome (in the late 19th Centuey) declared its opinion that the line of succession had been broken in the Anglican-Episcopal Church.
FrankV,
While there’ve been many speculations on both sides of the Tiber, especially since the “Dutch Touch”, there have been no official developments in the Catholic view of Anglican orders since the Leo XIII’s Bull Apostolicae Curae.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
Chris, you are correct about no official developments. In fact, when he was JPII’s cardinal advisor and head of the CDF (ca. 2002), Cardinal Ratzinger issued a statement in the name of the Holy Father in which he reiterated the conclusion of Leo XIII’s bull and also gave Apostolicae Curae as on example of an infallible statment. That was a surprise to many, includng some Catholic priests I know, since it has been the common view that the only infallible pronouncements since 1870 (if my feeble memory is correct) are thought to be Papal Infallibility and the Dogma of the Assumption of the BVM.
Of course, #2, an official document on Ecclesiology under the name of the CDF and the Pope is quite distinct from private opinion–we agree on that.
[blockquote]That was a surprise to many, includng some Catholic priests I know, since it has been the common view that the only infallible pronouncements since 1870 (if my feeble memory is correct) are thought to be Papal Infallibility and the Dogma of the Assumption of the BVM. [/blockquote]
Bob, you’re partially correct, AFAIK. Those are examples of infallible [b]ex-cathedra[/b] pronouncements since 1870. It looks like the statement contained in Apostolicae Curae falls under one of the other categories of infallible pronouncements (Ordinary Magisterium). This would be similar to Pope John Paul IIs statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the authority of the Church to ordain women.
For Heaven’s sake, why do you care? The RCs think they are all alone in heaven? So what? How does that harm you? Why get your fenders wrinkled? Is the pope infallible in matters of faith and morals? He is, to the RCs. To the rest of us, what difference does it make? Papal infalliblity in faith and morals is a silliness that most of us don’t have the time to indulge in. So leave the RCs to their belief in this matter. It’s no skin off our nose. Don’t we have better things to worry about? LM
I love the Greek “rock” translation of Jesus declaration to Peter after his declaration of “..thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. ” Jesus expanded on that statement by speaking “rocks”. “..thou art Petros (little rock) and upon this Petra (big rock) will I build MY CHURCH (based on Peter’s declaration of faith). No one church including the Roman church has any God given right to say we are the true church. The Roman church was recognized by the Roman empire as the state church centuries after Apostolic times and there was constant conflict between Constantinople and Rome on this point and Orthodox churches joined in as well. No physically visible church can claim the title of THE church. The day will come when the unseen Church will become the visible church of multitudes of 1,000’s upon 1,000’s that will sing of their Lord. But that wont be happening for a while yet.
#11, except that “Big rock, little rock” distinction isn’t made in Koine Greek. See Karl Keatings article on the “Petra” and “Petros” usage:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp