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.
No, my SOLE point was to show that it happens at all, not what happens first. All of us have prior sin at any given time anyway.
God does not ordain sin!
Jesus prayed to the Father to take the cup away, but then demurred to the Father's will. Since Jesus prayed in perfection, we know for sure that it was the Father's will that He go through with it. How can this NOT mean that God ordained the crucifixion?
Are you really going to equate the sin of Judas to the humility and Faith of Mary?
I wouldn't because it doesn't fit my belief system. I think God was in control of the whole thing, so only God is worthy of thanks. But under your system it is different. Man is in control. So, I was just asking why you don't also thank Judas along with Mary. Without his (and others') free will choices, there would have been no crucifixion and thus no salvation for any of us. What's the difference if man is in control?
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 have been divorced and remained single for some years. Do you think I got any china or purchased any? Hardly.
She came to help me or scatter my ashes whichever was appropriate.
***It seems to me that much of the results of the Reformation is human-centered. ***
I think that we have now found the problem. You perspective is off. We are trying, and have always tried, to come closer to God. There is nothing man-centered about it.
You, however, appear to be church-centered.
Pharoah’s sin allowed the Israelites to leave Egypt. That was good, wasn’t it? Judas’s sin allowed scripture to be fulfilled, that was good, wasn’t it? All these and much more, were orchestrated, ordained, foretold, and brought about by God. If it is according to his will, it cannot be a sin on him. He makes the rules, not us. He determines what the definition of sin is. What may be a sin for us will not be a sin for God. He, and he alone, can destroy his created without punishment. HE MAKES THE RULES.
Is there a source you can point to which lists them and their significant doctrinal differences?
It is important to keep in mind that in His human nature He felt everything we feel, including fear. The Gospels tell us that He asks for the cup to be taken away to emophasize His human nature, and His omniscence to show His divine nature.
In His human nature He also proclaims that "the Father is greater than I." In His human nature He cries over Lazarus knowing in His divine nature that He would raise him minutes later. In His human nature, He acted and felt and suffered like we all do. And that includes praying.
One thing we must never succumb to is the heresy that He was God "cloaked" in an image of man, as some cults suggest, or that He was only a human, as other quasi-Christian groups believe.
It was also a wonderful example of where our prayer life should always be: "not my will but Yours".
Yes, Christ in His human nature is our example that we should imitate, and that includes our willful and not coerced submission to God, deferring everything to Him as the Divine Liturgy reminds us every Sunday:
Choir/Congregation: "Amen."
If they deviate from the (trinitarian, christological, soteriological, sacramental and apostolic authoirty) foundations of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Old Reggie, they are significant. I would wager that all 33,000 and growing, qualify. :)
That is a very important consideration to recognize: St. Paul was spreading his gospel.
Never mind the choice of words that God will judge through Christ Jesus...and the whole Christological mumbo-jumbo it carries
He did not, as St. Luke did, gather information from those who knew Christ.
But, the Church would not exist without St. Paul's ministry, that much is clear. For, St. Peter wrote nothing (unless you believe that 1 and 2 Peter were written by 65 AD!), and neither did the others, save for the four who wrote (or copied Gospels from each other), and St. Paul, who provided the groundwork for the Gentile Church. Yet much of what he teaches is admittedly his and not Lord's teaching/commandment/permission.
This represents a dilemma. If we consider everything he wrote as scripture then we submit to human authority and equate it to God's. Otherwise, we must distance ourselves from those parts of his Epistles where he clearly makes his and not the Lord's commandments.
The Church says St. Paul is important for our faith. I do not like the man one single bit. I am personally a Gospel Christian in my heart, but I defer to the Church which holds St. Paul on the pedestal without explaining some very crucial and even questionable issues of his ministry.
It also makes me wodner what did the remaining seven apostles (St. Peter included) teach, since there seem to be no records of any of their works.
I do know that God DID ordain that lucifer fall, but I'm not sure how to evaluate its importance. Without it, there would be no need for salvation (apparently). And without the crucifixion of course there would BE no salvation. If lucifer broke away against God's intent, then we have a very weak God indeed. Why should we believe in any of God's promises for the future if lucifer (or man) has the power to thwart what God wants?
Dear Brother...Don’t you see where this belief of ordination of sin eventually leads to?
It leads to our omnipotent God who always gets everything He wants, and Who carries out His preordained plan to perfection and without interference or set back.
One must wonder how come he didn't write anythng then? What was he doing? After his 15-day visit to Jerusalem he was then gone for 14 years, and returned with St. Barnabas whose epistle was originally read in churches as scripture but was dropped from the canon by the middle of the 4th century AD without any explanation. And St. Barnabas was one of St. Paul's closest associates.
Please explain how is this to be understood with the Reformed notion that the "elect" were "saved" (and were to be specifically created to be saved) and the "reprobate" were "condemned" (and were to be specifically created to be rejected) before the foundation of the world, and before there were any humans on earth, before they had any faith, and was therefore not necessary for their salvation.
What did Christ's sacrifice on the Cross change vis-avis the preordained "salvation" set in stone, so to say, of the elect established before the foundation of the world?
What do our prayers change vis-avis the preodained fate of all the people of the world before they even existed?
What do our sins change or bring about if anything vis-a-vis the preodained damnation of the reprobate?
According to the reformed theology, those who were created for destruction cannot repent because God won't allow it; and those who have been chosen to be spared for all eternity cannot fall away no matter what sins they commit, because God won't allow it.
Why, the sheep were separated from the goats before they even existed. We might as well just ignore the entire human history, and just proceed to the Final Judgment, before the foundation of the world.
just proceed to the Final Judgment, before the foundation of the world
should read: "just proceed to the Final Judgment, rubber stamping that which was judged before the foundation of the world."
Cuttn' and padtin' ends up cuttn' sometins. :)
2 Timothy 2: 8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's word is not chained. 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory
Galatians 2: 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. 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. 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. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. ......14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17 "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!
Big difference. Desiring is longing for something.
So there are some things beyond God's reach? Some things God longs for but cannot get?
FK: "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).
Then according to this, man thwarts God's will by definition because God calls all to be saved.
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" themselves; they are merely responding to the good will offer.
Good example, and of course they would be "saving" themselves. Without their independent action, they would be imperiled as illegals and face deportation. With their independent action, they would be saved (via amnesty). It is all up to them whether they will be saved or not. The government (or God) IS indispensable in the formula, but FUNCTIONALLY, the decision is made by the illegal (or believer-to-be).
And why does He say that His Apostles will sit at the "table in MY Kingdom and judge the twelve tribes of Israel" [Luk 22:30] and not the Gentiles? And why does He say that He was sent "ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel?" [Mat 15:24]
The Gentiles were obviously not to be included in the preaching of the Gospel by His own words. The ministry to the Gentiles develops along with the deteriorating situation with the Church in Israel, when the Christians were thrown out of synagogues, as predicted. Almost as an afterthought in dire straits.
Because it was a non-question? :)
So do you, OR! :) Be careful not to look for thorns in your brother's eye...
It was to test her faith. he did minister to her and her daughter, just like he did to the Samaritan woman and the people of her town and to the Roman centurion and his family.
His command to the disciples in acts 8 was to preach in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the utter most parts of the world. It was not to the twelve tribes of Israel; Jerusalem being the logical starting point. The church at Jerusalem was a vibrant church when Samaria was evangelized, Philip witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch and Peter evangelized Cornelius and his house. Persecution dispersed the Jerusalem church, not apostasy. In fact up until the 4th century it was still a strategic church until Constantine and the gentile bishops adopted an anti Jerusalem program.
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.