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.
Yes, and in Mat 10:16 He says "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." Is he telling them to be evil and destined to hell?
Serpents/vipers were obviously considered dangerous, because they are dangerous animals. But they were also considered wise and cunning.
There are many instances, mostly in the OT, where people are called serpents.
I doubt they were all meant to be the descendents of Cain...
Personally, I have nothing further to discuss when my correspondent declares relativity theory as "failed" and astrophysics as "an expensive toyland for immature adults who can't hold a regular job."
LOLOL!
Maranatha, Jesus!
No it doesn't. The verse says "those who love him." The serpent loved Him?
Then it's not God's plan, it is the plan devised by men and God. So when God says "I know the plans I have for you", He doesn't really mean it, He really means "I know the plans we will make together as partners"
You are stuck on this faux "partnership" thing, which doesn't exist. We are not God's "partners." We are not even His "fellows," but servants.
We had no say in how the Plan would work. God decided.
As far as His plan is concerned, it can be based on two things: either we make decisions on our own and God knows them, or God makes those decisions for us (whether we know it or not). There is no other possibility.
If we make our own decisions (free will) which God allowed and incorporated into His plan, then we are liable for our decisions. If He makes those decisions for us (predestination), then we are not. In either case, God is in control through foreknowledge of our free will or through pre-progamming of our decisions. In the former, the liability is on the one who sins (rejects God); in the latter, man bears no responsibility whatsoever.
Oh, by the way, if this is going to make you feel better: we had no say in how the Plan would work. God decided.
Diego1618: These twins had different fathers.....paternal twins, a somewhat common occurrence among prostitutes
Boy, you are really stretching this one...Gen 4:1-2 is couldn't be clearer, yet you find fault with it. Amazing.
And how did the nephilim come about? Fallen angels having sex with "daughters of men."
My opinion is that the "serpent" was merely a temptation presented by the tree.
God placed the tree in the Garden to show us that our freedom is limited.
The tree allowed Adam and Eve to make right choices. It turns out it also made wrong choices possible.
God gave Adam and Eve a chance to repent but they refused. They condemned themselves. First they disobeyed God then they refused to repent.
After being cursed, we carry temptations with us. They live with us. They are our worst enemy. Eve succumbed to temptation the way we do every day, and rationalized that the fruit was good to eat.
Of course the Church teaches otherwise, and I always defer to the Church. But you asked for my opinion. And my opinion is always to place the blame on us, never on God or even on the devil.
I believe we have the powers to deny our temptations and not to succumb to them, through fervent prayer and strong faith. Evil has no power if we deny it power. God did not create evil, so evil does not 'exist' in the strictest sense.
It 'lives' in us because of what we do. We could eliminate evil in one generation just by saying "NO".
As far as I know, the Orthodox Church teaches the same thing the Roman Catholic Church teaches on this subject. I most certainly reject the serpent seed lie.
PS Eastern Orthodox clergy is valid clergy, and our Bishops have authority through Apostolic Succession just as yours do. Our sacraments are valid sacraments. Both Churches recognize that. Our Eucharist is a true Eucharist. There is no way that we could teach something like the serpent-seed lie and be an apostolic catholic Church, nor could our faith be orthodox.
"Gospel-only" is a distortion of what i said, FK. Gospel-first would be more like it. The rest of the Bible are visions and audible experiences of mortals receiving words from God. The Gospels are not dreams or trans-related visions...but real living word of God walking on earth. There is a qualitative difference. Nothing comes close to the Gospels. They are the filter through which everything else in the Bible is judged and brought into harmony.
Again, the Jews did not recieve full revelation until Christ appeared. The OT was a gradual revelation. It doesn't mean it wasn't true; it just wasn't full. The revelation of the OT leads and foreshados Christ with various "types." the presence of Logos in the Ot becomes apparent only after the Gospels were written.
LOL! That's pretty good. :)
FK: "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 don't understand the "yet". Statistically, there must be many many fully saved Christians walking around out there, whose faiths do not include assurance. Perhaps many in the Apostolic faith are in this group. So, that's how I approached the last possibility.
I believe that my surrender to Christ was genuine. I know that God forgave my sins. I know Jesus died for me. I experience Christ working in my life. And, I constantly measure myself against the scriptures to see if I generally "look" like a faithful Christian in God's service. God's promises go hand in hand with all of these types of things, so, I have assurance.
Tell me, FK, can there be any greater litmus test of true faith, a greater proof of orthodoxy 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").
Yes, it is very admirable to love God without assurance. There can be no doubt. I think it is also admirable to love God with assurance. Ideally, the Christian theology behind it should make no difference as to whether and how we love God. As Christians we are blessed to be able to love God, no matter our theologies.
What is "beyond" Hymphrey's spheroid universe?
Three times MarkBsnr, three times, not once. One-time immersion is invalid baptism.
I give credit to God for everything good, whether I understand it or not. His will be done.
I don't foresee too many Jews converting to Christ at any time any more than large numbers of Hindus or Muslims converting. Not according to the current trend. If anything using the trends we can be almost certain that the world will be Muslim one day (Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world).
Cosmology produces nothing. It is a speculative exercise in futility. It has no purpose. If you can come up with more profitable and tangible aspects please enumerate them.
I believe that my surrender to Christ was genuine
I have no doubts that it was/is. But we can't be our own judges. Many people will say "I don't steal, I have compassion, I am a good person, I love God...I know when I die I will go to heaven." Sure sounds like "I earned it" if you know what I mean.
Just ask yourself if you love others as you love yourself. If the answer is no, then none of us can be sure of salvation because none of is is Christ-like. If we are saved it's only because of God's incredible mercy.
I think it is also admirable to love God with assurance
But is it easier?
the Christian theology behind it should make no difference as to whether and how we love God
If we can say "Thy will be done" and have no second thoughts.
You won't find word "agape" in the Bible either (except in Greek). Triple immersion was a Trinitarian formula from the very beginnings of the Church, taking the Great Commission literally.
"By three immersions, therefore, and by three invocations we administer the important ceremony of baptism...and that the souls of the baptized may be purified by divine knowledge." (Basil, Bishop of Caesarea )
"You were conducted to a bath just as Christ was carried to the grave and were thrice immersed to signify the three days of His burial." (Clement of Alexandria)
"The true doctrine of our holy mother, the catholic church has always, my brethren, been with us, and does yet abide with us, and especially the article of baptism and the three immersions." (Monulus at the Council of Carthage)
"You were led to the holy pool of divine baptism as Christ was carried from the cross to the sepulcher and each of you were asked whether you believed and made that saving confession and descended three times into the water and ascended again and that water of baptism was a grave to you." (Cyril of Jerusalem)
"Christ delivered to his disciples one baptism in three immersions." (Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople)
"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." (Didache, Chapter 7, c. 70 AD)
[I]mmerse three times "thrice immersed" (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4)
"[D]ipping the head three times in the layer" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8)
The Eastern Orthodox Church, unlike western churches, does everything in the name of Holy Trinity. It interprets the Great Commission to read "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" as baptizing in the name of all three God-persons individually.
I'm going to call foul here, purely on your logic. One can foreknow results according to a devised plan to accomplish the end results without controlling each and every in-between variation. Even humans do this all the time.
But one cannot foreknow with Godly precision if one's devised plan includes random elements. That happens with humans all the time. I plan to go to a movie tonight. But, a few hours later, my wife doesn't feel well, so we postpone until later. I had a perfectly good devised plan that was altered by uncontrollable or random circumstances. I don't think it's possible for God's plan to be like that (Heaven help us! :), so if it WAS true then God would not REALLY have a plan "in any real sense", as I said. If the millions of random free will acts of EACH of the billions of humans who have lived were a part of God's plan, then the whole thing is just a crapshoot. For God, that is no real plan, that is sitting back on the couch and simply recording all of these random events as He foresees them. He tallies the scores, and then announces "That's my plan". It's the inmates running the asylum. :)
It tells us "like the angels of God in heaven". Is there a difference when they are on earth?
Gen.6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Because of the angels (who are now considered the "fallen angels") and their offspring, Geber, Nephilim, giants, God saw,(5)the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The results - He sent the flood (not the first flood that destroyed the world and every man and all creatures) but the flood of Noah.
So...God's Word tells us that angels did procreate while on earth. Those angels have been condemned because of that but not yet killed. They will be released again at the end of days:
Matthew 24:37But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38.For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark.
"Giving in marriage to the fallen angels" and Christ is telling us that it will be that way again. I believe that Rev.6:12 refers to that time and event, when the fallen angels will be loosed:
And I beheld when He had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
This happens at the 6th seal (Satan's time is shown at the 6th seal, 6th. vial, 6th trump = 666). Those verses are speaking about the time he and his angels come to earth pretending to be Christ.
After re-reading this I realize I'm gettng off subject. Sorry....WmFights, thank you and a few others who may not agree with this but you have not closed your mind to it. You are one of the few that has actually asked questions to debate the ideas.
Thank you ...........Ping
Stfassisi, please don't ask a question like that. I'm not Catholic but I have great respect and love for the mother of Christ. She is blessed above all women.
I don't know what role she continues to play, if any, but I do read what satan will do. God warns us about what he will do and he is the one we must be prepared for.
....Ping
Since Heaven is a spiritual plane, there may not be the referents as here in the material one. For instance, there may be no darkness since the glory of God might illumunate everywhere in Heaven.
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.