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.
Exactly. That's why Luther told his followers pecca fortiter (sin boldly). It's a miracle that Protestantism actually did not take over, given its narcissistic character.
The comeback appears to be that one will WANT to imitate Christ, but there is not compulsion or consequence.
It's like prayer in a preordained world. It changes nothing.
I still haven’t gotten by the idea that the Reformed God the Father creates His children all over the place, ‘adopts’ some, and then drowns the rest like kittens in a sack, except in everlasting hellfire
Yeah, but they will tell you that the evil ones serve a specific purpose for the saved. Poor Judas, he really had no choice. He was set up before he was born. Just one of the many unlucky villains of heavenly hollywod, I guess.
And I sure haven’t gotten by the idea that the Reformed God is the author of all evil via the preordination of all that satan does
"Poor" satan! What choice did he have...?
I don't know how much Peter spoke about his assurance in scripture, but I know that Paul sure did:
2 Tim 1:12 : For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. KJV
2 Tim 4:7-8 : 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
They both had the confidence that is available to all Christians. Some accept it and some don't.
Are you not aware of the passages in the OT and NT where God does indicate despair that the people will not turn to Him?
I am, just as I am aware of the passage where God asks Adam where he is because God doesn't know. And, just like the passage where God bargains with Abraham about Sodom, as if God was going to change His mind. We can interpret God to be a very confused and disorganized fellow if we want to. :)
Revelation is one of them...and so are most if not all of the prophesies.
Fine, those comprise a very small part of the Bible in terms of word count.
FK: "I agree, Paul was taught by Christ exactly in accordance with the Gospels."
Sure, that's why he dismissed baptism as having much importance compared to his preaching his own gospel (as he called it himself).
LOL! Well, I will continue to defend Paul as long as you care to attack one of your own Canonized Saints. :) In this case, Paul was correct and agreed with Christ that water baptism is not important to salvation. When Christ spoke about baptism, some have decided that He was unclear as to whether He was talking about water baptism or baptism of the Spirit. In fact, He spoke of both at different times. Paul amplifies Christ's words to make the point absolutely clear. Baptism in the Spirit is critical to salvation, water baptism is not.
In addition, when Paul speaks of "his gospel" he is also careful to note that this Gospel came not from him, nor any other man. He plainly states that ALL of it is directly from Christ. We are left to either call him a liar or not.
Christ never said that water baptism was salvific and Paul agreed.
So, ignoring the Great Commission (a commandment)is okay? Or is it that St. Paul wasn't aware of it? Or is it that it was not in the originals and was added by a scribe in later copies like the Comma Johanneum?
What? Christ spoke of water baptism in His Great Commission, but He said nothing about it being salvific. Where do you see that? If you believe that it IS salvific then you must also believe that going forth unto all nations making disciples (a commandment) is salvific, yet the Orthodox Church eschews this command to the extent you are self-admittedly non-evangelic.
But when the Church treats some scriptures with "different levels of importance" you take the opposite view!
That's my job! :)
[Paul] baptized a few adults. Surely it could not have been just water baptism. Some faith had to be there.
I may not understand what you mean. What other baptism could Paul have effectuated? Given my faith, I obviously believe that everyone Paul (or any other Apostle) ever baptized already had faith.
A liar must distort the truth intentionally (i.e. consciously) in order to be a liar. I never suggested St. Paul did any of that! God forbid!
Paul claims that he was directly taught by Christ Himself, one on one. There is no room on his part to be simply mistaken. If Paul was unsure about something he wouldn't guess. Especially on a matter of faith, that would be against God's clear teachings. Paul purposely leaves himself no outs here. Either what he speaks is straight and true from Christ or he is a fraud. For example:
1 Cor 3:10-15 : 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Paul was well aware what "faking it" would mean. Mistake is also not an option since he wouldn't have taken the chance. Paul was never a soft spoken individual, so he either charged forth with a saying or he didn't say it. Considering all of Paul's writings, one cannot say that he was right on some things and wrong on others. He was either an inspired Apostle or a fraud.
FK: "Paul goes all or nothing in this passage, so we have to choose what to believe."
Therein is the error, FK. Choosing what to believe makes our faith a man-made faith.
What do you mean? Of course in your faith you choose what to believe. Your choice is to turn over most of your beliefs to a group of men to give them to you. That is, you choose to follow the Church first, and whatever it says is what you believe. That is your choice, and it is fine. I obviously make a different choice.
Yes, Paul was clear to distinguish, and I am only aware of the one example which you cited. It is indeed unfortunate that some see Paul as being a sort of lone wolf evangelizer. I see the Gospel that he preached as being identical and/or logically clarifying to that found in the big 4. :)
Look, the Gospels quote Christ as commanding His apostles to "teach and baptize." Is teaching salvific any more than baptism? It's a commandment, FK. It is an obligation to follow in full, not in part, or to make our own versions of it. It's not about being salvific; it's about what the apostolic job is. Yet, St. Paul clearly decided his job was to teach and to leave baptizing to someone else. There are three possibilities for this that I can think of:
1. He was not aware of the Great Commission (the Gospels were not written yet)
2. He chose to ignore it (I doubt that)
3. The Great Commission was never given by Christ and was added into latter-day copies of the Gospels. (there is evidence of such Trinitarian and other insertions in the NT)
My choice is No. 1 as the most likely reason.
Paul claims that he was directly taught by Christ Himself, one on one
With all due respect, so Mohammad claimed God did the same to him.
You also seem to equate being inspired with being perfect. Being inspired doesn't mean you become "God."
Of course in your faith you choose what to believe
And I thought Calvinists like you teach that what Christians believe is given to us by God. How can it be our choice if it is given to us?
Your choice is to turn over most of your beliefs to a group of men to give them to you.
Or, we could say that the Apostolics have been given the right eyes and ears to know what is true, which is why they are in the Church and others are not.
The others are simply "blinded" and cannot see or hear. Isn't that how the Bible deals with opposing views?
That is, you choose to follow the Church first
No, that's not what the Church teaches, FK. God makes the first call.
That is your choice, and it is fine. I obviously make a different choice
Then the "truth" is a personal choice.
***Look, if you are deathly ill and there is a doctor who says he will help you free of charge, and you refuse to go to him, and you die it’s your fault. You can come to a doctor and the doctor will save you. God saves. Only God saves.***
Look, if you are dead and a doctor comes and gives you life, and he says that his Son has already paid for your recovery, are you going to refuse the life you have been given? You can’t come to the doctor, you are dead. The doctor comes to you and gives you lfe, free of all charges.
:::I don’t know how much Peter spoke about his assurance in scripture, but I know that Paul sure did:::
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
Paul was writing at the end of his in hope and belief, but not certitude. As Jeremiah expressed it, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who “believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away” (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
:::Look, if you are dead and a doctor comes and gives you life, and he says that his Son has already paid for your recovery, are you going to refuse the life you have been given? You can’t come to the doctor, you are dead. The doctor comes to you and gives you lfe, free of all charges.:::
Some do, Irish, some don’t. That’s the whole idea behind free will.
That's not what Christ taught.
St. Paul teaches that those who accept Christ become "dead to sin" and he might have taught that we are "dead in sin" before we accept Christ, but either way those are his constructs.
Those who accept Christ are not sinless. Those who do not are not dead because they can still come to Christ.
That is an excellent post, Mark.
***St. Paul teaches that those who accept Christ become “dead to sin” and he might have taught that we are “dead in sin” before we accept Christ, but either way those are his constructs. ***
Either it is scripture, or it is not. If it is scripture, it is true. It is not sort of true, maybe true, or possibly true, it is TRUE. If you hold that it is not scripture, then you have decided (your own interpretation) that it is not true, therefore, never use it again.
Also, if you are going to continually use scripture out of context, we are going to have a hard time communicating.
Matthew 9:9-13 is about Jesus sitting with and eating with what the Pharisees considered evil people, tax collectors and “sinners”. Jesus, in verse 12 informed them that he came not for those who didn’t need him, but for those who did need him. In other words, not for the self-righteous, but for the downtrodden. It has nothing to do with being dead in sins or only being slightly ill.
The dead can’t. That’s the whole point. Romans 3:11 “... there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.”
Well, when you have "some church fathers agreeing about any thing, you can be certain that some sort of compromise had to occur." [Westminster Assembly of Divines called by Parliament of England 1646]
:)
I would say yes. What would you say?
First I'd say you got a lousy pastor. Then I'd ask your spouse, then your kids and then... :)
1 John 4:7. “Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
Yes, according to scripture we know God through love.
And we know Love through God.
True as well.
Could someone who has never known scripture know God?
Romans 1:18-20.
Yes, God made himself plain to all.
Always? Every time? Impossible, with men of free will. All men will not always choose the same thing every single time.
Yes, every single time. This is the unique power of saving grace. Would you expect anything less from God? :) All men will always be true to their natures. A lost person will ALWAYS turn away from God. Likewise, one with a changed heart will ALWAYS come to Christ.
[FK on the Apostolic faith] If God wants us to love Him, then we control whether God gets what He wants or not. We control. That’s what you’re fighting for.
We’re not fighting for it. It is. It is the difference between the robot slave and the free love.
OK, that's all I was going for, an admission that man is in control (on this issue) and God is not.
FK: :::That’s true, but the position of the Apostolic Church is that the HS refuses to lead individuals on anything really important vis-a-vis faith. That is reserved only for the Magisterium/consensus patrum.:::
Not true. The Holy Spirit is present in every believer. The Church is the institution that can see whether the individual is actually being led by the Holy Spirit or by the voices in his head.
It IS true. When you set the Church as the standard that is what the Holy Spirit leads. I know you believe in indwelling Spirit, but the laity does NOT receive their teaching from the Spirit, they receive it only from the Church. From the Catechism:
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (emphasis added)
The Church alone. No Holy Spirit teaching to the laity allowed.
The Reformed indicate that the Catholics believe that men go to God and therefore it is all up to man. Not true.
I know, and I don't think I implied that. I know you believe in cooperation. God offers and man's sovereignty determines whether a "deal" is done. It is not unlike an arms-length transaction. God agrees to open up the gates of Heaven, and man agrees to do sufficient works and have sufficient faith while on earth.
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.