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.
As yours and kosta’s post point out, a problem for predestinationism is meaning, or the lack thereof.
Maybe they would reply: Meaning or not, doesn’t matter, we are predestined.
However, if the sphere of religion does anything it gives or finds meaning in human existence, in who we are and our relationship to the Divine.
Well, we are talking about God's divine plan. If we can say that God plans the missions for people, then why would He not also plan the salvations of His children? Here are some of many Biblical examples:
Eph 1:4-5 : 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—
Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.
Rom 8:29-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Acts 13:48 : When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
I think we can take from these (and others) that God has a very sophisticated plan and that salvation for some specific people is included in it.
Thanks for your replies on my silly but serious question. Here’s some more.. :)
Do those with better clothes feel pride and those with less feel envy?
In other words, how would it matter?
So they can prove "it" to themselves..
I KNKOW that, FK. But I believe He draws ALL mankind to salvation, not just a chosen few. People turn Him down but at least they’re given a chance.
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was in a parallel universe or somethin’ (smile).
So, for this to even be possible, it would mean that God would want and lead me to love Him, while at the same time His plan was to reprobate me. Seems unlikely..
Well, he's fooled you about your choices before. :)
I know that nothing good lives in me..
Except Christ, right?
Dying to self is a big thing in our theology. It's necessary for our true Self to emerge and grow. It doesn't mean that God will replace self with Self, though we believe He does, unless it's not in our best interest (thoroughly perplexed yet?)
And you can choose take actions - constant prayer, repentance, charity, abstinence that starve the self and allow God to replace it with his will (if it's His will), whatever that might be. We see this as what Jesus taught, the Beatitudes. That Jesus was not just commenting here, but actually teaching us - as if we had choices.
Or can we choose? I think you would say, only the elect can or will make this choice, that in practice our will is inapplicable, a non-starter (I would say "an illusion").
However, I think it would be a correct reading of our theology to say that this choice, purgation, is the only aspect of theosis/salvation that our will applies to. The rest is up to God.
You would cry "Foul! All is up to God!"
But back to the question of whether you would still love God if you were not rewarded for it with Heaven:
I think ya dodged it. ;)
They are predestined, justified and glorified because of what they have already done. There was an age before the one we are now in. That was the age in which Satan fell, taking many of God's children with him. The elect stood against him then and that is why they are The Elect. They earned it.
For whatever its' worth, then why did He create Adam and Eve and make everything good, knowing it would turn sour? And why did He create the world knowing that mankind would turn so wicked that He would have to drown all but a few? Or why was the Serpent in the Garden, or why does He allow evil if everything has been predestined...what good are prayers when they can't change what has been predetermined before the foundations of the world, etc., etc.
He created this 2nd age to give mankind another chance to follow God. Everything, or everyone, has not been predestined. They have a choice to make.
What is the point of speaking of sin if all we do is what we have been pre-programmed to do? Then the evil ones are evil because God made them evil?
Only the elect can be moved around by God. He works in their lives to put them where they need to be and do what He wants them to do. Those of free will must ask Him to have that control over their life. Forrest Keeper, do you remember that I asked you if you ever felt "led" by God, did things ever happen in your life that could in no way be a coincidence? That is what I was talking about.
I don't think we are pre-programmed but we are going to fulfill His plan. He doesn't "make" anyone evil. They choose that themselves.
Why then the Great Commission? Those who will become Christian will do so of no effort of their own, whether we preach to them or not.
Our job is to teach His Word and He will open the eyes and ears of those that are meant to be. The others, because of what was done in the first age, must choose Him on their own - free will.
It's like a movie. The end will not change regardless what you are doing in the theater or even if you are watching the movie. So what we do in the movie changes nothing; its meaningless whether we sleep, talk, pray, behave, misbehave, or whatever.
Only if you are an elect. They/we are here to show the way to the others.
That makes our existence and what we do completely menaingless.If nothing we do can change then why are we doing it?
We can make a difference by bringing His Word to others. They are NOT predestined. Our job, our destiny as a Christian is to do that. God put me where I needed to be to hear what I needed to hear at the right time to know I am a child of God. He can use us to do that for others.
We have already had near misses with such bodies (two of them) in the last couple of years. The trajectory of collision is the only predetermined certainty known but to God.
As God is coming to earth He will not allow that to happen:
2Peter 3:10.But the day of the Lord, will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
13.Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
The "heavens and earth" that pass away are the 2nd heaven and earth AGE, not the actual earth. All that is "burned up" are the evil rudiments. Then, we go into our 3rd age - eternity.
At least that's the way I understand it........Ping
Indeed. What we think about predestination has nothing to do with whether or not something is predestined. Either God has foreknown and foreordained all things or he hasn't. If he hasn't, then he doesn't know what is going to happen next. The future is an open book not only to us but to God as well.
If God created the earth knowing and declaring the end from the beginning, then all that we do, every exercise of our free will and every interference in that free will by direct action of God is in accordance with his will and purpose.
If anybody has the solution to this paradox, then explain it. I accept it, but I don't claim to understand it. I am comforted in knowing that God's plan for my life will be fulfilled no matter what kind of idiotic decisions I make. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. I don't choose to lie down there. If left to my own devices, I'd be walking toward the cliff.
I didn't know you were a Mormon.
For a serious answer - I don't think those that are wearing those linen garments would feel pride (I hope that is all gone then). As far as the others I hope envy will also be a thing of the past. Who knows, will "shame" still be felt at not doing more when the chance was there.
I don't know if it would matter to God but.....how would I feel if I did so much for my children and only a few of them went out of their way for me when I required so little? God has feelings too so I hope I'm one of the ones wearing a linen garment.
I'm not. There are scriptures that tell us about that first age throughout the Bible as well as scripture that tells us about God's elect.
Would you say that in practical, daily living, the key attitude from predestination is surrender to God's will? And that, further, this is the most important lesson we can have from predestination, or moreso, from God Himself?
That was a really bizarre post, ping. You need to concern yourself more in regard to your belief in all this weird stuff and concern yourself a little less in regard to those who hold to the idea of the Rapture of the Church.
Stuff like what you posted in 2068 is downright heretical to the max. Downright gnostic and weird. You may be able to glean some verses out of context to support your weird theories, but I don't ever want to see you ragging on dispensationalists for their inconsistent hermeneutics after that post.
I'd like to see you try and prove all that weird stuff, but I don't want to encourage you to think about it. I would instead encourage you to forget about it.
I concur.
The "heavens and earth" that pass away are the 2nd heaven and earth AGE, not the actual earth. All that is "burned up" are the evil rudiments. Then, we go into our 3rd age - eternity. At least that's the way I understand it........Ping
Well, the Pope has the right to his opinion, and I have the right to disagree.
As far as I know, I haven't "ragged" on anyone for anything they believe. I have tried to politely argue the points of the rapture doctrine.
As far as post 2068, I knew it is something that isn't taught by most churches but that doesn't make it untrue. I don't think it is weird at all and it actually answers many questions. You yourself believe in something that wasn't taught before the 1850's and yet it is now accepted by many. Are you right and I'm wrong or.....
Why do you believe what I stated in that post is heretical and gnostic? You have to understand, I'm not saying it isn't as I haven't studied mainstream religion or doctrine. They may well consider it to be but my beliefs are taken from the Bible.
I'd like to see you try and prove all that weird stuff, but I don't want to encourage you to think about it. I would instead encourage you to forget about it.
I can't forget about it as I believe it is the truth and it has deepened my understanding of scripture. I could tell you about all that "weird" stuff if you really want to learn. It truly has answered many questions. If not....that is okay too. As far as I know it doesn't affect anyone's salvation but it does unlock some of the "mysteries".
Paul says, “It is FOR freedom that Christ has set us free.”
You are absolutely free to disagree with the Pope. Paul also said, “Let each one work out his own salvation with fear and trembling.”
At the judgement, “the pope made me do it” will not be a good defense.
See, that's just "IT", Ping. It is troublesome (to me) when someone comes up with a "way-out" explanation of Scripture based on some knowledge they possess and others are ignorant of.
Of course it doesn't affect anyone's salvation, but it's just plain Gnostic and heretical even only on it's surface.
Ping? The other day my mom and I were talking and I spoke about believing in predestination. She, right now, does not. As I was leaving her house for the evening, a key verse came to me:
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I believe this verse, when thoroughly thought through proves predestination.
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.