"Well for your information he's not really dead but he's mostly dead. If he was really dead all you could do is go through his pants looking for spare change."
At least Mad Max knew the difference.
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.
That’s the stick part (sin), love is the carrot.
So, we’ve found, we have other means of knowing God than scripture.
Could these be used to compare or evaluate our contradicting interpretations of scripture?
Your premise is that God wants all to be saved. Is God's desire fulfilled, or is it thwarted by the will of men? Of course the latter, so God is lacking in results. For you, men have the power to thwart God's will.
***So, we’ve found, we have other means of knowing God than scripture.***
I’ve never said otherwise. I was talking about LOVING God, SEEKING God, WORSHIPING God.
***Actually what does any of us really know?***
I know that if the Mariners do not get any pitching, they are going to suck next year, too. That I know for sure.
You didn't see that in a Catechism, did you?
That's funny because that's exactly what I just quoted back to Mark, before I had read this. :)
Historically, the Church Councils do not operate on a majority, but on a consensus or harmony, accord of the whole Church.
Were Councils ever disbanded because consensus as you describe could not be reached? I just can't imagine that whenever there was a big get-together that everyone agreed.
No, God offers us salvation. WE are not obliged or forced to accept it. How can a man be sovereign if he has no power over his salvation? All we can do is pray (petition) that God have mercy on us, to lead us not into temptation, and to deliver us from the evil one.
IMO, under the Apostolic view man does not manufacture his own salvation out of nothing. God offers to all, and in his sovereignty man accepts or rejects. That is power over whether a man is saved. The final population of Heaven will be determined by sovereign man, not sovereign God.
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.
Well, under the Apostolic view it isn't exactly free. You still have to perform sufficient works for the doctor to agree to heal you. :) And in your example, you are sovereign to decide whether to go to the doctor and perform those works or not.
You are applying your own idea of who God's children are to our God and then criticizing the results. You can't mix the two. God does not adopt SOME of His children. That is YOUR belief. Instead, God adopts ALL of His children, as the Bible says.
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.
You are mixing again. You place an artificial duty upon God to maintain support of all beings. You say that God "owes" satan maintenance. It is only from THERE that you then accuse our God of being the author of evil. The truth is that the Reformed God does not owe anything to satan, and lets him do as he pleases to the extent of God's allowance. Therefore, God cannot be the author of evil under Reformed theology. It is only when you mix in strategic elements of your own faith into ours that things start to look bad. :)
Thank you, good reply.
Mark-Some do, Irish, some don’t. That’s the whole idea behind free will.
You can't very well ask for life if you are dead now can you?
When 100% of all dead people were asked if they would like to live again, not one responded.
Gasp!!! The dead now have free will!!!!!!
Well, I don’t know how much “free will” does anyone when their dead. :O)
You have the free will to rot. You have the free will to stay put. You have the free will to not move.
"Well for your information he's not really dead but he's mostly dead. If he was really dead all you could do is go through his pants looking for spare change."
At least Mad Max knew the difference.
Haha :>) Time for a little magic confection?
It's nice that everyone considers +Paul's writing as scripture. My question is, why? I can't help it, but ask such a question, because what stops someone else from claiming the same? SHOW me why scripture is scripture. Show me. Why was the Epistle of Barnabas considered scripture and then all of a sudden it was dropped?
Why did Luther decide what is scripture and not what the Church decided centuries earlier? Everything is presumptuous and without any proof. Take it because I say so. That's baloney. The Muslims claim the same for the Koran. And the Jews deny the Gospels and the NT with equal fervor and with equal lack of any proof. It all seems like a big baloney to me the more I think about it.
***It’s nice that everyone considers +Paul’s writing as scripture.***
I quite agree.
***My question is, why?***
Why not?
***And the Jews deny the Gospels and the NT***
One and the same as far as I am concerned.
***It all seems like a big baloney to me the more I think about it.***
Quit thinking about it :>)
The only way scripture could be declared scripture is by divine inspiration. That places the Church Fathers who delcared what is scripture on the par with the Apostles. Yet, in both cases, there lacks any serious proof that anything wirtten in the Bible has any factual merit.
Maybe it will all default to Pascal's (in)famous wager, where it is simply less of a risk to believe in God than not to. A logical and mathematical certainty lacking any other proof thereof.
No, of course not. We do not earn our salvation.
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) ......... My choice is No. 1 as the most likely reason.
So Christ personally trained Paul for all that God wanted Paul to accomplish in furthering Christianity, EXCEPT that Christ forgot to tell Paul what his job was??? I find that a remote possibility. :) Paul got his marching orders directly from Christ, and I am relatively certain that no one went un-baptized because of Paul's refusal. Paul correctly put the emphasis where it belonged PER God's leading of him, evangelizing the people, not performing rituals.
FK: "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.
Well, if you think that Paul's testimony in scriptures is no more credible that Mohammad's in the Koran, then I would say that's a problem. :)
You also seem to equate being inspired with being perfect.
I cannot. Perfect people don't sin and the Apostles ALL surely sinned. Paul claims to be the chief among them, and he probably has a decent case. :)
Being inspired doesn't mean you become "God".
Of course not.
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?
I thought you might jump on that. :) It's simply man's POV vs. God's POV. From man's POV we make the choices. I should have been more clear.
The others are simply "blinded" and cannot see or hear. Isn't that how the Bible deals with opposing views?
Yes indeed. The tough part can be sorting out who the "others" are. :)
No, that's not what the Church teaches, FK. God makes the first call.
Sure, for you God makes the first call, but at that point you're not in the picture yet. Once a decision is in front of you, you choose the Church first. The comparison was as opposed to scripture.
FK: "That is your choice, and it is fine. I obviously make a different choice."
Then the "truth" is a personal choice.
No, the full truth isn't relative. However, God brings us all along at different rates and paces, and people apprehend the Holy Spirit's leading in different ways. That's why none of us is in the same place in our respective walks (stages of sanctification). So, while everyone is wrong about some things, some are more wrong than others. :)
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.