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.
What sin do you consider to be good and preordainable?No sin is good!
I'm traveling today and will not be on FR.
I wish you a Blessed Day!
In charity, I will assume that you have simply forgotten what I have said many times before. :) That is, the word "salvation" can be CORRECTLY be used to describe events in the distant past, the past of 2,000 years ago, the present time for living believers, and the time of entry into Heaven. By one viewpoint, yes we are saved from the foundations because God predestined us. But that doesn't tell the whole story because God still has a human history that has to be lived out. Faith and perseverance are required, and we disagree on who should get glory for all of those things happening.
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.
How so? We say that the crucifixion and resurrection are the penultimate events of Christianity, and that man had nothing to do with them, and that God gets all the credit and glory for saving His beloved. Unlike the Apostolic view, whose movie must include credits to Judas and the Sanhedrin priests because of their indispensable free will works, the Reformed give all credit to Christ Himself for His sacrifice. Christ didn't even need any help under our view because Christ is strong.
Unfortunately, you feel the need to share this most glorious of all glories (away from God) with at least one human, perhaps more. What denigrates Christ is the idea that, which couldn't be a good hear, since there is still even one plan to go. :)
Big difference. Desiring is longing for something.
Is it the same as the Reformed notion of God's outward vs. inward callings?
I have no clue what that means. If God calls, that is not His desire but His deliberate act (a will).
God calls on all people, God offers His grace to all. That is His will. God does not force by His will our acceptance of it.
His offer shows His desire to make it possible for all men to come to Him freely.
OK, this is what I meant earlier when I said that you believe that man functionally saves himself
If the government announces that all illegal aliens in the US can become legal aliens if they accept government's amnesty program, then those who respond are not functionally "saving" themsleves; they are merely responding to the good will offer.
Without the good will offer, no one can be saved no matter what they choose.
So now you are freely admitting that in some cases it is God's direct will that we sin?
No, FK. Making a free choice is exercising God's will (that we are free to choose). Our choices are not God's will; our ability to choose is.
Is this your teaching or is this the SBC teaching? All Protestants as far as I know consider "salvation" a specific moment when they are personally "saved."
That is of course not scriptural, but that's another story. The fact remains that the Reformed teaching states that the "elect" were "chosen" before the foundations of the world to be pardoned. That means, Christ's blood was not necessary to for their 'salvation.' That is implied in the Reformed teaching, although few will admit it.
But that doesn't tell the whole story because God still has a human history that has to be lived out
But human history functionally changes nothing. So, the "elect" are not "saved" at different stages of God's creation, but have been saved before any of them even existed. They were "saved" for all eternity, not because of their faith, or because of Christ's sacrifice, but "just because" God wanted it.
Likewise, those who have been condemned have been condemned before they committed any sins, before they even existed, "pre-emptively!" Therefore it is not their sin that condemned them, but God "just because."
How so? We say that the crucifixion and resurrection are the penultimate events of Christianity, and that man had nothing to do with them, and that God gets all the credit and glory for saving His beloved
On the surface it all seems perfectly Christian. It is only in the core of the reformed theologhy that the real picture emerges.
We see that all this "human history" is by necessity simply a deceptive outside dressing, a bunch of rituals and events of no effect, and that the separation of the sheep from the goats already took place before the world even existed! It will only be repeated as preordained at the end of human history—with nothing really changed; all of which means that whatever happened in human history was a charade, including the Crucifixion. We might as well skip the whole thing and just go to the end, period.
It's like reading a book where the end is announced in the first sentence of the first chapter. Why bother reading the rest?!
My salvation is always in jeopardy.
Of course I do wonder how you know so much about those "clowns"
Television. :)
The Gospels are the pinnacle; the rest of the NT is subordinate to them.
We are under the authority of Paul, to answer your post, that is true. But we do not have a Gospel of Paul; we have Paul spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ, not the Good News of Paul.
Thanks, Irish. The other responses have had to do with how companies are organized, battalion staff meetings held, and messages sent. :>)
And I thought the point was pretty clear.
(”No shepherd would leave the 99. That’s a whole lot more sheep at stake. There’s more wool in 99 than in one little ole lamb. It didn’t mention his getting neighboring shepherds to watch his flock for him.” )
And that is an example of what separates us.
We have the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ that is the teaching authority left by Him on earth. It seems to me that much of the results of the Reformation is human-centered. It is what the individual wants, or wants to believe, or rationalizes.
Read the Bible and come up with your own conclusions. 30,000 shingles out there and more every day.
:::We see that all this “human history” is by necessity simply a deceptive outside dressing, a bunch of rituals and events of no effect, and that the separation of the sheep from the goats already took place before the world even existed!:::
That’s quite a theology that has been constructed out of selected passages of the Bible. I would really be interested in the explanation from the Reformed as to your point.
Mark, you seem like a good guy. Paul is an accepted Apostle, and no one disputes it. Jesus is our Lord, and no one, especially Paul, should go against him. Therefore, anything said by Paul would not contradict anything said by Jesus. We both know that.
In our case, we both know we are under the authority of the Apostles. That is good. We are to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.”
You will make your decisions. I will make mine. Praise God for His mercy.
Amen, brother.
Did Paul say he visited Peter for instruction>
Was there any indication whatsoever that the visit involved instruction?
A few years ago I had a heart problem. My daughter visited and stayed with me for two weeks.
Did she come for instruction from me?
A few examples:
1 Corinthians 7:
[6] I say this by way of concession, not of command.
[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
[12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
[35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
2 Corinthians 8:
[8] I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine.
2 Corinthians 11:
[17] (What I am saying I say not with the Lord's authority but as a fool, in this boastful confidence;
1 Timothy 2:
[12] I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
Paul spreading the news of Paul.
At this point I won't ask you to justify the claim (not yours) of a billion + Catholics who all believe the same thing.
Didn't mean to. I know that Christ prayed for the cup to be taken away AFTER He had already prophesied that He would die and be raised up on the third day. He knew what was coming, YET He prayed anyway. I offered that a possible reason for this is that it helped Him deal with it. It was also a wonderful example of where our prayer life should always be: "not my will but Yours".
I mean, Jesus wept, laughed, got angry, etc. He had passion. However one wants to describe that Jesus, that is the Jesus that benefited from prayer.
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.
Nah. It's bad, but it's not THAT bad. :)
What clowns we have left are being pushed out of the Big Top.
Gal 1:
15
But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased
16
to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood,
17
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.
18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.
19
But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
So, he came to Jerusalem specifically to confer with Peter (maybe on the choice of a fine chianti to go with fresh fish, perhaps), specifically saying that he didn’t come to see any of the others (maybe they cheered for the wrong football team), except for James, who would take over the post of bishop of Jerusalem from Peter.
Reading Galatians in this fashion, I would say that he went to see Peter on a matter of some import.
I have no idea if your daughter came to see you for instruction. She did come to support you, obviously. Either that or count the china. :)
I see what you mean.
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) by David B. Barrett, et al, there are “over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries.” Every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.
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.