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.
If they can make all sorts of stupid accusations, so can I.
While I have no idea to which Freeper you are referring, I would imagine the reason is that for Baptists, as well as Calvinists, baptism itself is not salvific in any way. IOW, it has no where near the importance that Apostolics place on it. Therefore, it would not be a "compromise of faith" to go from Baptist to standard Reformed.
One difference between Bible-believing Protestant churches and Apostolic churches is a matter of freedom. Either the Holy Spirit is free to lead as He sees fit, or He is shackled under the authority of a particular group of men. I might add that for you and Mark, you disagree on which group of men should be followed. If following men first was proper, how could any of the rest of us know which group of your men was right?
I read the Bible, Sir. I study, and I pray. No man was given Divine Authority except the Son of Man.
My religion was founded in the City of David when the prophecies were made real and the Messiah was born.
Neither the Pope, nor my pastor, nor any other made of flesh is infallible. No election of men can determine or decide what is or is not Divine. No council of men can choose a man to speak for God.
Please, I beg of you and your bretheren of the Catholic faith - be mindful of dividing the Kingdom. Please, I beg you of Protestant faith - be mindful of dividing the Kingdom.
Do not place ‘church’ above scripture, do not place mortal flesh and sinful egos above The Word.
In that case we have an actual Apostle of the Apostolic Church who taught actual error, in scripture no less. Since it took a later consensus of uninspired men to correct his errors, we can conclude that these men were more authoritative than Paul himself, and therefore scripture. You ask us to believe in Apostolic succession, yet you have the students being greater than the master. You ask us to believe that teachings are preserved from teacher to student, yet Christ PERSONALLY taught Paul and you say Paul was wrong and those who followed him knew better. Given your words, how can we possibly have any confidence in Apostolic succession at all?
You CANNOT tell me that future generations kept getting wiser and wiser since you say that you practice the same faith with the same dogma as 2,000 years ago. Your position, therefore, is that at least one Apostle got it wrong, then some very smart men came along and got it right, then no one has improved upon them ever since. To me, that sounds like a Church Father-based faith. The Fathers you agree with were right, and (contradictory) scripture was wrong.
AMEN Irishtenor! The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that some are His children and some are not:
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Rom 8:20-21 : 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Phil 2:14-15 : 14 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe ...
1 John 3:1-2 : 3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God ! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God , and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
1 John 3:10 : This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
The Apostolic claim that all are children of God doesn't come close to matching scripture.
Given their view that all people are God's children, my experience with the Apostolic beliefs is that they would say that while God is powerful enough to save anyone, He refuses to do so because paying homage to man's free will is far more important to God than saving His own children. God would rather see His own beloved child go to hell for eternity than intrude on his free will decision, EVEN INCLUDING that the child did not have the full information to make such a monumental decision. Too bad for the damned, but at least they can rest in hell knowing that God respected their independence and freedom of choice. :)
(And our view of God is called cruel! :)
Your god is weak. Your god sits there hoping that some will turn to him.
Yes, compared to our beliefs this is very true. Their version of God does not have the will to get what He wants. Rather, He hopes and wishes that independent man will choose Him, and He is deeply disappointed when man thwarts His will that all be saved. They believe that God offers advice and direction of course, but He still respects the sacred boundary of man's sovereignty. The final list in the Book of Life is determined ultimately by man. God just copies down the answers after He consults His foreknowledge. :)
Your god can’t communicate to you, so he has a hierarchy so that his message maybe will cascade down to the masses so they will believe.
I think they would say that God does communicate with the laity, but certainly not on any issues such as faith and morals on which the Church has taken a stand. That is the exclusive providence of the Magisterium/consensus patrum. Here of course there is a noteworthy divide between the Latins and the Orthodox.
Your god gives no assurance of salvation because he is too weak to do so.
That's exactly right because God chose relative weakness to give power to man's independence and free will. God "can't" give assurance to any man in scriptures because until the day he dies, man's destiny is in his own hands.
Your god has to trust you to have the wisdom and impetus to change your way so that you will believe in him.
Yes, God will not interfere. It is man's sovereign decision.
Overall, I'd say that your assessment was right in the ballpark with my understanding. :)
That's pretty good, Mark. Thanks for posting. :)
That is a straw man, FK. Ptotestants will pray with anyone, whether they share their beliefs or not. That is the kind relativism that puts any absolute truth about God into question. It says that everyone knows a little bit of the truth and that the truth is not known to anyone.
The Apostolic Church knew the truth from the beginning as handed down to this Apostles by our Lord Himself. There can be no relativism in it. Again, the path is narrow and there is no room for heresy. To Protestants, the path is wide; it's a pot shot.
All those who claim to be Christians do (inluding Mormons and JWs). Where does it say in the Bible that reading the Bible will lead you to the truth? And how many "versions" of the truth are there?
Your message calling for unity is welcome; it would be wonderful if we could all agree. But what's the alternative? To say that there is a little bit of truth in any man's religion and call it even? No thanks. God is not relative. We can't say that the Jews are partially right, or that the Muslims, who read the OT as well, are also aprtially right. Nor can we gve the Hindus the credit for knowing one God, as they claim.
Christ gave us a Church. Yet there are thousands of denominations, each teaching something different. That's not united Kingdom, dear friend. That is a House divided, a house made in man's image and to man's taste. There is only one Church, and one catholic and orthodox faith.
I have yet to fully understand and study the Church's position on St. Paul. I do know that his writings in the Church are not on the same level as the Gospels (when Paul's Epistles are read, the congregation sits; his writings are read by a lay person. The congregation stands when the Gospels are read; the Gospel reading is always done by a priest, and homilies [commentaries] are always made on the Gospels; the Epistles are located in a different part of the church; the Gospels are always on the altar; there is a lot of symbolism in all that).
I only established that (1) it is impossible to find a Trinitarian formula in St. Paul's writings and (2) that he refers to the "spirit of God" in a Judaic manner, as grace, and not as the third Person of the Holy Trinity.
If you want to call it an "inspired omission" or any other rationalization, it doesn't change the facts stated above. Obviously, the apostolic successors did, through divine revelation, establish the dogma of the Holy Trinity from the Holy Scriptures, indirectly. So, their authority in that respect is undisputed as far as I know by mainline Protestants. It is disputed only when it runs against Protestant innovations.
I have yet to fully understand and study the Church’s position on St. Paul. I do know that his writings in the ***Church are not on the same level as the Gospels (when Paul’s Epistles are read, the congregation sits; his writings are read by a lay person. The congregation stands when the Gospels are read; the Gospel reading is always done by a priest, and homilies [commentaries] are always made on the Gospels; the Epistles are located in a different part of the church; the Gospels are always on the altar; there is a lot of symbolism in all that).***
So it is the Word of God, but not as good as the gospels? I don’t understand that. If it is the Word of God, it is ALL equally important. How can you differentiate between them if they are ALL inspired?
The Bible also tells us in no uncertain terms that God became Man to save the world and that His grace is given to all.
The trouble is that there are passages that seem to contradict that, and therein lies the issue, just as some Arians and Gnostics and non-trinitarian Christians find that Christ says that "the Father is greater than I" and conclude that there is no Holy Trinity.
John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him
Well, it doesn't say "those who were forced to receive Him..." If I hand out gifts, only those who wish to receive them will receive them, unless I force them to receive them—in which case they didn't "receive" them, did they?
Phil 2:14-15 : 14 Do everything without complaining or arguing, 15 so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God
Here again the choice is ours...it has to come freely from our hearts.
1 John 3:1-2 : 3:1 ... The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
Well, of course...no one knew God, except the prophets and patriarchs of the OT, and even then not completely. Mankind forgot God when Adam willfully sinned and fell from grace.
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. [Deut 32:18]
You have forgotten God your Savior [Isa 17:10]
Yet my people have forgotten me; they burn incense to worthless idols, which made them stumble in their ways and in the ancient paths. They made them walk in bypaths and on roads not built up. [Jer 18:15]
The world came again to know God through the prism of Jesus Christ, and only through that prism. Everything else is burning incense to worthless idols, even those who are monotheists.
1 John 3:10 : This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
Anyone who does not d what is "right?" And who is to say what is "right?" Everyone thinks he or she is right and has a "good" reason for doing and believing what he or she believes or does. Remember +Paul's famous "doers of righteousness?" That is a loaded term. Anyone can find himself in this formula...
This is not something new. Jews stand in the synagogues only when the Torah is read. This is because they believe that Torah was dictated to Moses word-by-word and that the Torah represents the actual words of God (just as the Muslims believe that Allah dictated to Mohammad the entire Koran).
The Apostolic Church acquired its lytrigical and othe rpractices directly from Judaism from which it grew, and that includes incense, chanting, bowing, vestments, etc.
Just as the Jews believe Torah was dictated to Moses, the Apostlic Church teaches that the Gospels are actual eyewitness accounts of God living among people and speaking. Thus they are not "visions" and "messages" experience in dreams or in a trans, but direct words spoken by God himself in front of everyone.
Thus the living, witnessed word of the Lord, the Gospels, is the holiest of all Scriptures. But, of course, all scriputres (whatever you happen to include as such) is good and profitable forreading and for doctrine. The trouble here is to determine what exactly is the "scripture." On that we do not agree, although the Protestants accept part of the Christian canon put together by the Church.
Which means nothing. Lots of "athletes" are in reality girly-men.
that I could bully my way through life to get whatever I want...
Not much has changed.
Back to my original poser to you, which you have never addressed.
When are you going to provide dogmatic teaching from the early church fathers on the dogmas of the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Misconception, Roman papal primacy and Roman papal infallibility from the first 4 centuries of the church?
Oh, but you can't, because it is not there, those are dogmas that Rome imposed that never existed.
Not really, FK. We only know that God's love does not force itself, but offers to all.
God would rather see His own beloved child go to hell for eternity than intrude on his free will
No true, FK. Especially coming from a Protestant who believes God creates some people specifically to go to hell "for His pleasure and Glory." The Bible is clear that God takes "no pleasure" in suffering. If we go to hell it's because we condemn ourselves by sinning and refusing to repent. We condemn ourselves by refusing God.
Their version of God does not have the will to get what He wants
Our view is that God has everything, and lacks nothing.
I think they would say that God does communicate with the laity, but certainly not on any issues such as faith and morals on which the Church has taken a stand
Well, how is this different from everyone making up his own rules and morality based on the "indwelling spirit" (which could just as well be a demon or even a mental illness)?
God "can't" give assurance to any man in scriptures because until the day he dies, man's destiny is in his own hands.
Maybe because the Bible tells us to "choose life?" (Deut 30:19, 2 Kin 18:32). God is telling us that we do have a say in our destiny. He offers us salvation. Ours is to accept it and give ourselves to Him.
Yes, God will not interfere. It is man's sovereign decision.
Baloney, FK. Isa 38:5 says otherwise. He hears our prayers and responds to those that are pure in intent.
Christ did not declare Peter infallible - a man declared himself infallible. The claims by the Catholic church of being the only true Christian church organization are not supported by history or the Bible.
Again - focus on the house in which you worship instead of focusing on the Truth as given by The Truth is a sure path to division and destruction.
I simple yes or no will clear this up.
Please answer yes or no.
Anyone who has actually read what I have stated concerning the false doctrine of the "serpent-seed" doctrine, which I have addressed in no less than 5 posts, would not have to resort to badgering.
Now, when are you going to provide dogmatic teaching from the patristics of the first four centuries of the church on the Roman dogmas of the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Misconception and Roman papal infallibility?
Mark: Are you saying that satan is God’s agent? Are you saying that satan’s tempting and evil in the world is God’s doing?
Mark, Judaism considered Satan an angel of God and, who is far from fallen, but God's loyal servant. A cursory reference to the Encyclopedia Judaica will confirm this. The Gospels make a break with this Judaic tradition and place Satan as the fallen angel.
No matter what Judaic "tradition" says, Scripture is quite clear that Lucifer rebelled against God and is thus "fallen", along with the angels who rebelled along with Lucifer.
Which is another reason to be suspect of "tradition", as opposed to the surety of Scripture.
Angeology and demonology familiar to Christians can be found in latter-day Judaism (Kabbalah, etc.) and rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism of the 3rd centruy A.D.
Many Protestant, in order to maintain the absolute sovereignty of God, abhor the idea of Satan being a rebellious angel, but an agent of God who acts by God's permission (i.e. the Book of Job). As one Orthodox rabbi said: "how can an angel rebel against G-d? That's ridiculous!"
I don't know where you got the idea that Protestants "abhor the idea of Satan being a rebellious angel". I know of no Protestant who holds to such a riciculous idea, or any that has taught anything closely resembling it.
Protestants recognize full well that Lucifer is rebellious, but that Lucifer, being subject to the Sovereignty of God cannot do anything which God does not allow. God is not surprised or unaware of anything Lucifer does. Either God is Sovereign or not.
Now that is a strawman. Protestants who hold to "sola scriptura" do not.
That is the kind relativism that puts any absolute truth about God into question.
Protestants who hold to "sola scriptura" hold to a narrow path, holding that there are absolute truths knowable about God as revealed in the general revealtion of Creation, the special revelation of Scripture and in the specific revelation of the Incarnation.
It says that everyone knows a little bit of the truth and that the truth is not known to anyone.
I find this statement, as well as the one direcly above to be rather odd considering the employment of apophatic methodology within the eastern theological tradition concerning the “knowability of God”.
The Apostolic Church knew the truth from the beginning as handed down to this Apostles by our Lord Himself.
Which is recorded in the Scriptures which can be the only sure standard, especially when it is clear that on issues of so called "tradition", there were fathers who were in disagreement, and often contradicted the Scriptures.
Did God ask you if you wanted to be born into this world? Did God get your permission to be created? Yes or no?
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.