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.
It would be great to be there in heaven with you when you are formally introduced to the angels you have already met while in the flesh.
If we equate "experience" with sensory contact with the reality exterior to ourselves, and to nothing more, then it's perfectly understandable that a person would have to "wonder." It seems to me there's nothing in this sort of experience that can, all by itself, account for them.
I didn't notice this earlier and perhaps it is a typo, but in some spaces this is true: In the triangle inequality the whole is always more than the sum of its parts or equal but never less. In euclidian space it is not true.
LOL! I know, Gnostics (New Agers and the like) believe that we are spirits imprisoned in bodies as punishment for being "naughty" angels...
Let me just ask you, since I am sure you are familiar with this: do your brain "cells" believe something other than what your hair cells "believe" or is whatever makes the cells 'believe' all the same regardless if they are cells of the spermatic duct or those on rods and cones?
Kant deduced most of his Critiques, but the categories were simply presented—pow! What he calls space and time are well defined but not described so we are free to describe them any way we want without violating the Critiques. We have discussed space and time often enough on FR, and obviously can’t come to an objective agreement—because they are entirely subjective.
No doubt, and I probably missed to notice that they were angels. Buit I know I didn't feed them.
Ah, but is the universe in euclidian space?
We are just going to disagree. As I disagree that satan fathered Cain. However, I see a lot of folks seem to want to believe the nephalim were fallen angels, so this belief may not be as extreme as people say, that does not make it true though. In my limited study of Scripture one thing I have noticed is major points are revealed to us numerous times. Here a whole new theological perspective is being fashioned from a questionable interpretation of a single passage and this point is found nowhere else in Scripture.
How does reincarnation play out in this interpretation of Scripture?
True. This is what Einsteinian relativity tells us to expect. But at the same time, it insists that the laws of the universe are identical for all observers, regardless of their own particular "rest frames," or particular spatio-temporal coordinates.
Actually, I believe, science explains or models events based on the assumption that the laws of the universe are the same throughout the universe.
This is a fundamental assumption. Unprovable except through inferential logic, not firmly.
Another fundamental assumption of science is that we can trust our senses - i.e., conscious reality is not all a dream.
But when there is any apparent contradiction between a Gospel verse and one, say, in the OT, we employ two completely different methods of reconciliation. Our side tries to find a way so that both verses can logically be 100% true. You, I believe, are closer to simply declaring the OT verse 100% wrong and the Gospel verse 100% right. This isn't interpretation, it's nullification. :)
In the Apostolic Church all scripture is equally true, even if being only a foreshadowing of Christ, and all scriptures are not ranked the same.
If you mean ranked "generally" then this would seem to be a contradiction because some scriptures would be "truer" than others. I think it might be fine to "rank" in terms of specific issues. For basic salvation issues, of course the Gospels are at the top. However, what about abortion, for example? If you were ministering to someone about the Biblical view, would you stay contained within the Gospels, or would Books like Psalms, Isaiah, Exodus, and Job get the most mention? I think it would be a mistake to elevate any one book over another in a generic sense. Now, if I was going to a desert island and could only take a certain number of books I would make that choice based on the importance of the material covered to me. However, I wouldn't make that choice thinking I was taking God's full revelation along with me. That wouldn't be true.
It is my understanding that the 1st century Church considered only Tanakh (aka Old Testament) as scripture.
I thought that Peter recognized Paul as scripture, and Paul was obviously writing TO churches.
Forgive me. I know I don't have a dog in this fight but seems as though you are unaware of your own writings. There are strong indicators of this theology in NT writings as well as intertestemental writings.
Jude 5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
The above writing link two concepts by using the words "in a similar way", angels and Sodom and Gomorrah.
2 Peter 4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
The above has Peter aware that angels sinned. Paul seemed to be familiar with this as well when he told women to cover their heads "because of the angels". He was aware of writings in the book of Enoch (whom Jude quoted from) that mention angels were attracted to the hair of women.
Gnostism is based in fatalism.. like Islam.. and some Christian(works based) and Buddhist religious thought..
God(Judeo-christian god) is Spirit and those that worship him MUST worship in spirit and reality.. all other is flesh and movement/writhing of "the Worm"..
Sure they do. Christ is telling us what He wants the church to teach - About the Kenites, sons of Cain.
As I pointed out earlier, your premise for the two creations is based upon the KJV translation of heavens in Gen 1:1 and Heaven in Gen 1:2. It has been shown to you that the word for Heavens and Heaven are both the same exact hebrew word and only the KJV has a differing translation.
No, it hasn't. As I said before, we appear to have deuling scholars. Mine states:
With Heb. Particle 'eth before each, emphasising the Article "the", and thus distinguishing both from 2:2 "Heavens" in Heb. always in pl.
I don't know about you but that didn't make a bit of sense to me.....anyway, he thinks the translation of "heaven" in the singular is correct in vs.1.
If nothing else it should tell you that those verses should not be the basis for advocating for a strange doctrine (one shared uniquely by Mormons and White Supremists).
hummmm. Sure sounds like someone might be talking racism again (or else why would that person continue to bring that up???) The heaven/heavens deal is NOT the basis for what I have been talking about. It is only one small part of a puzzle. As I said before, disregard it if your scholars believe it is not correct. There are other areas to discuss.
Now your doctrine of Cain being the son of Satan is directly contradicted by the plain language of Genesis 4:1. Adam was the father of Cain. Period.
Then why is he not listed in Adam's genealogy. Why does he have a separate line of his own? Why does Christ tell us he is the son of the devil? Why does Paul tell us Eve was "wholly seduced"? Why does Christ want the churches to teach who his children are? Why did God throw them out of the Garden as there was no "apple" there.
but if you wish to try to explain your strange doctrines, then please start with Revelation 1:18.
I feel that scripture is a warning to us to listen to what He is about to teach. He has "the keys of hell and of death." He also has the seven churches in His hands.
The first church He approves of is Smyrna (2:8) and the other is Philadelphia (3:7). That Key of David is the key to biblical understanding and once you have the knowledge, that the 2 churches have, no one can take that away. The similarity that these two churches have that the others do not is that they teach about the Kenites.
9.Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie;
Knowing who they are will (10)"keep thee from the hour of temption, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
It sounds crucial to understand who those are that "say they are Jews but are not".
Who does Christ tell us that they are?
John 8:13The Pharisees therefore said unto Him "Thou bearest record of Thyself; Thy record is not true." (I use this verse to show who Christ is speaking to in the following verses - the Pharisees, supposed Jews)
33.We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest Thou, 'Ye shall be made free?'" (We know that the true Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt)
37.I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you.
38.I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." (lower case father - Satan)
41.Ye do the deeds of your father."....
44.Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
So....Jesus tells us who they are that "say they are Jews but are not". They are the synagogue of Satan and their father is the devil. They are the ones that killed Christ. Not the true Jews who have been taking that blame forever.
BTW, I'll admit that my mind is not open to your theories, but you are free to try to explain them.
Thank you Marlowe. I think it is a very important message.......Ping
Can you give me a specific example of a revelation that is not subject to falsification?
Now we are getting down to the kind of inquiry that separates the Kantians from the dilettantes. It has been shown to be spherical, but of course that says nothing about euclidial or hyperbolical. It might even be n-dimensional where n is increasing infinitely every instant.
That Jesus Christ is the revelation of God Himself in human flesh.
It seems to me you can believe that or not believe that. What you cannot do is falsify it.
Great points, D-fendr! Thanks so much for writing!
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.