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.
Back at ya my FRiend!
Come to think of it, none ofm the "ghosts" some spiritualists have "phootgraphed" were naked either. Does that mean the linen become "ghostly" too. I mean you can see through the ghost but not through his/her ghostly garbs!?
As far as the angels are concerned, they would be covered because of our sin nature and not because they have any reason to be ashamed. Besides, some of those angelic beings have many eyes and wings, etc. and they may not be exactly the kind of apparitions we would like to see, especially naked! :)
Thanks, FK, for the correction.
Do I understand it, though, that SBC believes that baptized sinners (no matter how grievous the sin) get that pass into Heaven?
What does impaired grace and comfort mean? Does that mean if one is baptized and then becomes a Jeffrey Dahmer that one gets a wooden chair rather than a LaZBoy in the hereafter?
Sometimes I think that we are.
I’ve been in several conversations over the past months with members of FR that baffle reasoning in their theology. They claim to follow the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible.
They strengthen my belief in the Magisterium of the Lord Jesus Christ every time that I read one of their posts.
You must not read every word in English translation of the Bible as a literal truth, but you need to seek the fuller meaning in the orignal language.
The word translated by the authors of KJV as "glorified" comes from the Greek word doxazo which means to praise, or doxa—praise. When that praise is directed at God, it becomes glory. Thus, the word orthodox means someone who gives true praise. When that same true praise is given to God it means True Glory or Orthodoxy.
Same word, different context-related meaning. In the proper context, Rom 8:30 would really mean praised, honored, etc.
"The elect stood against him then and that is why they are The Elect. They earned it.".......I have no clue where this is coming from. It's not Christian
We don't earn to be praised, or 'glorified,' or to be 'elect.' If God predestined us to election from before foundations of the world, there was no earning as we didn't even exist. It's not Christian to say our election was earned .
What we must ask is how much time went by before the "first day" of this age
The Bible does not speak of anything happening betwen day 6 and 7. You are squeezing in some prior 'age' in this period when Satan falls. Where does it say in the Bible when Satan fell?
He controls His elect. Those of free will must choose who they follow. Jesus knocks on the door but they must open it and invite Him in
Okay, I can agree with the latter part, but who exactly are the elect? The prophets and the apostles?
This earth age will end, not the earth
Our sun is a furnace with limited fuel. The earth will end. We know that.
This thread has taken some very weird turns. It’s gratifying to find our similarities as well as our differences.
This thread has taken some very weird turns. It’s gratifying to find our similarities as well as our differences.
Bear with me I like to go through things slowly.
Gen.1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This verse is not telling us what the status of God's creation was at this point. IOW, had the sun formed, were gravitational forces in place that caused this clump of dirt to begin rotating around the sun etc. In fact light does not happen until verse 3. I think a more plausible understanding would be at this point God created all the matter in the universe, held together in a singularity and created the space this singularity would explode into.
Ge, 1:2 "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
I read this second verse and think at this point God has placed all the materials God wants to use together, but has yet to apply the laws of nature God will create. I don't see any indication that God has destroyed a completed creation and started over.
Gen. 1:3 "Then God said let there be light; and there was light.
The big bang!
I know it's popular to believe this all transpired over billions of years, but if God willed it to be a literal day then it was done in a literal day.
I suspect that the appearances of this earthly plane are significantly different than that of the spiritual plane.
I really don’t get bent out of shape as to the literal timing. If God set up the Big Bang as the mechanism of the formation of the universe, then it’s all hunky dory to me.
The theories and observations of the day point to the Big Bang. If these lead to technological developments, then that’s good too. Our understanding of light went through many phases including that of small balloons of energy at the same time they were waves. Doesn’t mean that it is was right (and it isn’t). But it was a better understanding than what we understood before.
If God set up the Big Bang in a literal day, then so be it. If not, and the “day” was metaphor, then so it as well.
If the Mormon's profess some of the things I have written about, then I agree with them on those subjects. When I first began to "search" I ordered the Mormon Bible. I put it down after a short time - I do not agree with some of the things I read. Do you disagree with everything their faith believes in?
Now that you know I'm not a Mormon would you let me know why you take issue with the things I stated. Why do you feel they are in error?
I agree.
It's good to see your sense of humor Kosta. No, I don't want to see apparitions clothed or naked! (At least until I'm one of them)
In the military POV means "privately owned vehicle" (usually seen on travel claim forms), so I always chuckle at the double meaning—Godmobile! :)
The last possibility I can think of is whether I would still love our God if I didn't have the assurance that I claim I have about Heaven
Yet you say that we don't know if those who are saved are really saved...your only assurance is your somewhat solipsistic knowledge a lá "I think therefore I am."
I think I can answer "yes", since you [Catholics and Orthodox] all seem to be doing it [loving God without assurance of salvation]
Tell me, FK, can there be any greater litmus test of true faith, a greater proof of orthoodxy than that? Is that not unconditional? Now, tell me if there can be any other faith that comes close? That's why there is nothing like being orthodox (little "o").
It's good for the soul. :)
This is very nearly a first.
I’d suggest that we start with a good claret, with pate fois gras on biscuits, possibly some portobello in a cornmeal coating au frite and some escargot in garlic butter for an appetizer.
A crown roast with new spring potatoes, asparagus, and a raisin pilaf to follow.
Dessert: chocolate cake with raspberry filling and raspberry ice cream, with Irish coffee and Spanish brandy by the tankard.
Now, the next theological point is...
Pretty much.
Now that you know I'm not a Mormon would you let me know why you take issue with the things I stated. Why do you feel they are in error?
I alread did. You initial premise regarding the singular heaven in Gen 1:1 and the plural heaven in Gen 2:1 is obviously in error since the word in Hebrew is the exact same word for both verses. Since your entire doctrine is based upon a false premise, what follows logically is going to be false.
Beyond that your idea that people earned their elect status is anathema to the gospel of Christ. No man has earned the grace of God either in this world or any other. It is a gift and not a reward. If you think you are elect because of something you did in a prior lifetime, then you are your own savior and Christ's sacrifice on the cross was for naught.
This strange doctrine is a road to damnable heresy. Go down it if you wish, but remember you are going DOWN that road and the road to heaven is UP.
The Mormons believe in a pre-existent life and that being born a Mormon is a reward for being valiant in the prior lifetime and supporting Jesus over his evil twin brother Satan. Those who sat by the wayside are born into other faiths and those who failed in their test were born black. It is a damnable doctrine and yours is likewise.
Your doctrine leads to the same end as the Mormon doctrine. Works based salvation, earned grace, God being a respecter of persons. All damnable heresies.
You really need to rethink you position on these strange doctrines.
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. (Hebrews 13:9 KJV)
For now. Big bang is only a few decades old. It would be foolish to assume that it's the final theory of cosmology. At one point, the geocentric universe was as certain as we are today of the Big Bang. Biblical, mathematical and philosophical knowledge of the time independently came to the same conclusion: man and earth are God's central creation and the rest of the creation revolves around it (exists because and for it, literally and figuratively).
If these lead to technological developments, then that’s good too.
It's a working model.
Our understanding of light went through many phases including that of small balloons of energy at the same time they were waves
Light is a wave in perpetual motion, elicited by bursts. Any point on the light wave is a vector that "acts" as a "particle" with predictable geometric properties (Snell's law). A section of the wave behaves according to diffraction laws.
It's like considering each letter independently or a whole word.
The unit of energy of light is a photon or your proverbial "balloon." Still part of the same letter/word entity.
Doesn’t mean that it is was right (and it isn’t). But it was a better understanding than what we understood before.
Well, the ancients understood that fire and light go together. They understanding of natural sciences was not really wrong, just not as detailed. What was deficient can be summarized as cause-effect knowledge. They didn't necessarily know the causes of phenomena that we know today.
The best thing is not to mix science with the Bible. Science is not there to disprove God. It only provides working models, which—work but are not necessarily "true."
The Bible speaks of spiritual truths, and is full of allegorical messages. It speaks of experiences which no science so far has been able to formalize or describe.
I have absolutely no problem with that description. When I gave you the verse it was in answer to your statement of, "Sorry, in my religion, the only one who is glorified is God.. It was just to let you know it was a Biblical phrase, although I thought you knew it already.
We don't earn to be praised, or 'glorified,' or to be 'elect.' If God predestined us to election from before foundations of the world, there was no earning as we didn't even exist. It's not Christian to say our election was earned .
But then doesn't that raise the question of WHY? Why would He choose some if He is no respector of persons? If you don't want to call it "earned", call it "because of what we did in that first age". We did exist, our souls have been with Him since He created us and will be until eternity or the lake of fire.
The Bible does not speak of anything happening betwen day 6 and 7. You are squeezing in some prior 'age' in this period when Satan falls. Where does it say in the Bible when Satan fell?
No, I'm saying the first age was before the second half of verse 2 - before the first day. As for your other question, "when Satan fell", I don't know if it tells us. We know he was loved by God before his fall, we know that he has fallen by the time he is in the Garden of Eden (in the role of the serpent), with Adam and Eve. His fall had to take place before that and that is when "the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
Okay, I can agree with the latter part, but who exactly are the elect? The prophets and the apostles?
The elect are those spoken of in Rom.8:26-33:
28.And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.
29.For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
When did He foreknow them? From the first age! He called, justified and glorified them because He knows He can count on them to stand against Satan in end times. They have a job to do as told us in the Olivet prophecies. There have always been elect through the ages and they brought His Word forward.
Romans 11:2 God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew (When did He foreknow them?)
4. but what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to Myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal."
Those are God's elect. The number seven means spiritual completeness so that number could mean whatever number God thinks is complete - or it could be 7,000. They did not and will not bow to Satan when he is here trying to deceive Christians. The elect are those that know the truth, they know that anti-christ comes first, pretending to be Christ and they will not be taken in.
Ping....This earth age will end, not the earth.
Kosta...Our sun is a furnace with limited fuel. The earth will end. We know that.
I know that scientist say that but I also know that God said:
Rev.21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
22.And I saw no Temple therein: for the Lord God almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it
Does that mean being in another dimension? Is it a rejuvenated heaven and earth? Note the following verse:
23.And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
So....Does that mean that the sun is gone (as you said) or just that there is no need of it???
Even in vs. 3 that "light" isn't the sun. The sun wasn't formed until vs.14. When you say, "This verse is not telling us what the status of God's creation was at this point" you are right but other verses do point to the truth of that time.
I read this second verse and think at this point God has placed all the materials God wants to use together, but has yet to apply the laws of nature God will create. I don't see any indication that God has destroyed a completed creation and started over.
Nor did I when I took only those verses. Reading the others I gave you before, made me go back and reread those first two verses of Genesis in a different frame of mind.
Gen. 1:3 "Then God said let there be light; and there was light.....The big bang!....I know it's popular to believe this all transpired over billions of years, but if God willed it to be a literal day then it was done in a literal day.
I truly would have no problem believing it was a literal day but I believe that His Word tells us what happened and that is that there was an age before this one.
......Ping
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.