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 you’re out of contact, where do you drop the replacement radio?
But, whatever, I think what you are doing is diverting from the issue of recognizing the authentic because of relationship and history.
Textual criticism is how modern scholars argue over angels on the head of a pin.
The Christians of Corinth kept their Pauline letters and cherished them because Paul was an Apostle. They knew their origin and they validated them again and again through the years of the early church with the necessary support to demonstrate their reliability.
Once that reliability is established, you, Kosta, are under the authority of the Apostle.
If you’re out of contact, where do you drop the replacement radio?
But, whatever, I think what you are doing is diverting from the issue of recognizing the authentic because of relationship and history.
Textual criticism is how modern scholars argue over angels on the head of a pin.
The Christians of Corinth kept their Pauline letters and cherished them because Paul was an Apostle. They knew their origin and they validated them again and again through the years of the early church with the necessary support to demonstrate their reliability.
Once that reliability is established, you, Kosta, are under the authority of the Apostle.
No, God's desire is for all men to be saved. God offers and we follow or don't follow. Without God we are lost. Turning our backs to God will not lead us into everlasting life. Which way we turn is not God's choice, but our choice. If I sin, it's not God choosing sin for me, or forcing me to sin. It is all mine.
God gave us free will. With freedom comes responsibility. When we exercsie free will we are responsible, not God. That holds true whether we choose to give up our freedom and cling to God or whether we choose to abuse it and sin.
When we choose freely we exercie God's will, no matter what our choice is because it was His will to give man (wide but limited) freedom.
The location of the site of operation was known, as far as I could tell. I would assume my field commander was located at the original hill either actively engaging or preparing to engage the enemy. This would not be a wild guess.
The Christians of Corinth kept their Pauline letters and cherished them because Paul was an Apostle
Paul proclaimed himself an Apostle and said that Peter and James recognized in him the special gift. He offers no proof, and neither Peter nor James the Just corroborate this claim. 1 and 2 Peter were pretty much written (post facto) to reconcile the rift that existed between Peter and Paul, and the two groups that followed them.
Saying that the Corinthians decided he was the authority is saying that (some) men can determine what is scripture and what is not. Paul preached Christ, and the Gospels were not written yet, so there was nothing to corroborate.
So, I am asking you again: who has the authority to say "this is scripture and that is not," x?
X, interoffce memos are not cyber. Bn Cdr’s signature is well known to the 1SG, trust me. The senior enlisted representative is regularly present at command meetings.
Did you just make that up, FK? :) Theoretically saved? You must be kidding! Theoretically doesn't change the fact that (according to the Reformed theology) the elect were saved before they even existed, Crucifixion and all notwithstanding, and that all these real-time events were simply a "given" and necessary rituals for the play to take place, but the script has been written and the play was just putting the plan in motion.
That makes Crucifixion one of the many cogs in the wheel and not the crucial (no pun intended) events in human existence. It denigrates everything about Christ's sacrifice as one of the scenes in God's movie.
But the bottom line is this: Reformed theology must not consider Christ's blood to be the instrument of our salvation, because the "saved" have been saved before He shed any of His precious blood.
Not depth of Satan's deception is incredible!
FK: Jesus, who was 100% human, prayed for the same reason we do. He wanted intimacy with the Father, and we also know for sure that He supplicated. I happen to think it was His pure prayer life that allowed 100% human Jesus to take what He knew was coming.
But Christ is also 100% God. The way you describe it He is somewhat "schizophrenic" in the context in which my question was asked, which was that prayers change things from our human point of view (i.e. our ignorance).
You seem to suggest that Christ was ignorant of His divine knowledge rather than, as the Church teaches, that He exists in perfect harmony as both fully God and fully human.
Given that our name-sake theological concepts of the Holy Trinity and Christology differ on even superficial analysis, I wonder if we share even those basic Christian foundations; in other words we are not even in communion on the very basics of the Christian faith, but simply share the same terminology with very different and incompatible concepts attached to them.
That leads me to believe that we are much farther apart than one generally acknowledges. I would say two completely unrelated religions using the same terminology.
re: 11426: not depth=the depth
You have it backwards. The Scripture you point to shows that it is sin that “first” leads to God giving them over to shameful lusts
It is man’s free decision to sin that causes us to draw us away from God.Thus it is sin that wreaks havoc on the soul leading to more sin.
Sin effects fellow man by causing disruption and dissension. God does not ordain sin!
“”For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints.””
(1 Cor 14:33)
“”Why would we venerate Mary for her foreseen free choice, but not Judas and company, whose free choices were just as important to our salvation?””
Are you really going to equate the sin of Judas to the humility and Faith of Mary?
Dear Lord please forgive my protestant brother for offending you and your Mother
Actually, I find your church to be non-Biblical.
Good answer. Well done.
Dear Brother...Don’t you see where this belief of ordination of sin eventually leads to?
It put God in control of all things.
Do you feel God is not in control of sin?
Oh, come on. :) Peter was the oldest, so Paul wanted to see him. Big deal. That says nothing toward Peter's papal primacy or to anything that is claimed today. One chapter later, Paul says this:
Gal 2:9 : James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
This doesn't sound like papal recognition to me. I think you are REALLY stretching to claim that Paul's visit was in homage to a superior. He may have been showing respect, but Paul had the Gospel directly from the source.
His gospel had to agree with theirs, so he explained it to them privately, “lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain” (2:2). He thus submitted his gospel to the Jerusalem apostles.
Paul went to see several, not Peter alone, and it was a consultation, NOT some kind of recognition of higher authority. I see a drowning man here grasping for anything to support the papacy. :)
Paul singled out Peter as one who had a special office, above James and John, as the one God entrusted with leading the mission to the Jews (2:7-8). This made Peter a perfect test case to show the transcendent importance of the gospel. It is more important than any person, so Paul used Peter, the most important person in the early Church, to show this.
IMO, this is FLAT OUT intellectual dishonesty. :) This is the passage cited:
Gal 2:7-8 : 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
To claim that this shows Paul's deferral to Peter USING THIS PASSAGE WITHOUT CITING IT tells me everything I need to know. OBVIOUSLY, Paul sees himself as an equal to Peter in this passage. And as I noted earlier, IMMEDIATELY after these verses, Paul lumps Peter back in again with James and John as "pillars". Paul respected Peter as an elder, but Paul NEVER recognized Peter as a superior, spiritually.
The problem was with his behavior, not his teaching (making this totally irrelevant to the issue of papal infallibility, especially since Peter was not trying to define solemnly a dogma of the faith). Nor did Paul’s rebuke impugn Peter’s authority.
Nor did he affirm Peter's authority or recognize it in any way. I still see NO evidence that answers my question. I can live with a reasonable difference in interpretation, but I really don't see even that in this case.
I know. Since you were writing to me I thought you were kidding that I was, so I kidded back. :) All in good spirits.
“Do you feel God is not in control of sin?”
Man is responsible for his own sin.God is in control of the final outcome and God can remove any of us at anytime according to his plan.He does not need to lower Himself to preordain sin in order for His will to be done.Thus there is no sin that man can ever commit to change the final outcome of God’s plan. God is in control without ordaining sin
God sends us to Heaven or hell based on “our own” free decisions to either love and follow His will or our own selfish will.
Good Night!
I wish you a Blessed Evening
***He does not need to lower Himself to preordain sin in order for His will to be done.***
He isn’t lowered because he causes something to happen. Whatever he does is good. It may seem like a wrong thing, but that is only because we are looking at it through created eyes, not the Creator’s eyes.
Not only did he ordain things to happen, he told man what he was going to do. All the prophesies that were fulfilled were because he caused them to happen. The flood, Pharoah, Babylon, Joseph’s brothers selling him, Judas, all these things were caused by God for his purpose.
Yes, the trouble is in the interpretation. It is also in the claimed authority. On the 30,000, you may have missed an earlier post of mine. I announced that the SBC church in the next town over from me moved their worship time from 9:15 to 9:30, which matches ours. Therefore, there are now only 29,999 different denominations.
Communion is the operative word, of course. Scriptural, not just or only temporal jurisdiction.
Well, when the jurisdiction DEFINES scriptural communion, then it becomes more problematic. :) Jurisdictional fiat seems to take the "communion" out of any meaningful Church communion.
Partially. :) Actually, I was IN law school during the trial and watched every minute of it that I could outside of class to learn what NOT to become. It was a great education, and cured me of some pollyannish notions I entered school with. Nevertheless, I stand by my position that man is responsible for his sin, even though God ordains everything in His plan.
No, God's desire is for all men to be saved. ....
What is the difference between God's will and God's desire? Is it the same as the Reformed notion of God's outward vs. inward callings?
Which way we turn is not God's choice, but our choice.
OK, this is what I meant earlier when I said that you believe that man functionally saves himself. Yet, you jumped all over me. :) By your own standards, if it is NOT God's choice, then it is MAN who determines the names in the Book of Life. I could not disagree more. God is sovereign.
When we choose freely we exercise God's will, no matter what our choice is because it was His will to give man (wide but limited) freedom.
So now you are freely admitting that in some cases it is God's direct will that we sin?
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.