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.
This is really Christ's genealogy which begins with Adam. Cain has no part of it.
Can't think of any.
[Genesis 5:32] And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
If this is Our Saviour's genealogy then why does it bother to mention Ham and Japheth?
I do not wish to be a part of a discussion that has taken such a dark and ominous turn.
Ping, you and Diego are into something that you really ought not to be in. The fruit of this doctrine is obvious when you see who it is that is attracted to it. The ultimate fruit of this doctrine is racism and hatred and it is evidenced by the fact that the Christian Idenity movement and white supremists are singing its praises.
While I will not accuse anyone who believes in these strange doctrines of necessarily being a racist or a white supremist, the doctrines lead to that end and in the end, I truly believe that this is a road to hell.
You may disagree with me, but I am saying this with a sincere heart.
I will pray that you are led from this evil and nefarious doctrine and into a church where the truth of the gospel is taught.
In the meantime, if you wish to discuss and debate these doctrines, particularly the satan is the father of Cain and the Kenite doctrine, please do not include my in your pings. That goes for everyone else who is a part of it.
I honestly feel an oppresive spirit has presented itself on this thread and I don't think it is wise to keep feeding it.
May God enlighten you to the truth and turn you from this strange doctrine.
Marlowe
Cain was a brother of Abel and of Seth. The bible says so. God specifically said that Cain was Abel’s brother.
That settles it for me.
Since we are always accountable for our sins, yes, if we get rejected it is by our own doing. However, W(w)ho is it that prepares us for appropriate presentation? If it is God, then that is one thing. If it is man by his free will, then that is very different.
Thank you! I am glad we actually agree on more than Holy Trinity! But, then you will turn around and tell me that God made them disrespectful and the whole agreement is out the window! :)
I think we can still salvage something here because I don't believe in what I call "positive reprobation" (in effect, God zaps a reprobate to cause him to sin and be lost). So here, I would say it is closer to say that Adam "made" them subject to being disrespectful, they were, and God did not intervene.
How can something that is predestined be a "sin?"
Because predestination includes both acts of commission and omission. God predestined that He was going to not sustain Judas "enough" to guarantee that satan would enter him. That does not make God the author of Judas' sin since He had no duty to sustain Judas at all.
Sin, by definition, is separation from God. If that is not our will but God's, then it is not a sin.
That's right! :) But as you know, God has a will and so do we. When God relatively leaves us alone, then our will dominates. When He doesn't, then His will dominates. I mean, when we invite Christ into our lives to be our Lord, aren't we really asking Him for His will to dominate in our lives? I know I sure am. :) So, then when we sin, it is obviously our own will that is allowed to dominate.
So we can't say that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. He simply knew how Pharaoh's heart will be. God used the choices He foreknew Pharaoh would make and incorporated them in His plan.
But that presents a huge problem. What if Pharaoh had used his free will and turned out to be a nicer guy, as far as slave owners go? What if he would have gotten the message on the first try? That would have made the rest of the miracles unnecessary, AND more importantly, it makes God a complete reactionary to man's will. God simply takes humans as He finds them, and works around them to get what He wants. It is man leading God. Not possible.
This also has all prophecy being reduced to God simply peeking into the random future and writing down what randomly happened, and then planting those events as prophecy. To achieve the interconnection of the important events in the Bible by shear chance would be a statistical impossibility.
The evil would be to make them with the desire and intention that they become wicked and end up in hell.
Adam last caused them to be born into wickedness, not God.
Man most definitely controls his destiny.
If a man believes that he controls his own destiny, then has such a man really surrendered his will to God? For example:
Matt 16:24-26 : 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
Doesn't denying oneself include denying his own will? How can a man deny himself, yet retain control of his own destiny?
Man cannot save himself, but he can jump on the right train and God will save Him.
But in the Apostolic view, even if a man jumps on the right train, he retains the control to jump right off it again. This is not surrendering to God, this is keeping one's options open. Total surrender means giving up your will to God. And, the REMNANT of the old will that causes believers to sin once in a while does not compare to a retained will to undo the work of God in salvation in the first place. Those are two different things.
FK: "If God is in control, then all evil is accountable to Him"
No, because God is not a cause of evil. There is no room for evil in God. Evil is what God is not. God cannot be the source of sin because sin is separated from God.
Well, I agree with what you said to this point, but not with your quote of me. :) Within context, I was saying the above is your accusation of us:
FK: "You are applying (on our behalf) a sort of "Respondeat superior" view to all sin based on who is ultimately in control of the world. If God is in control, then all evil is accountable to Him".
You have said many times that you think that WE think that God causes evil, so I was just indicating that here, and then disagreeing with it. :)
... all this means is that God (fore)knew them before they were born. That doesn't mean Jeremiah's soul existed and was waiting for his body to be formed.
Perhaps "exist" is a tricky word here. I know there was no consciousness or anything like that, but everything that Jeremiah was to become was known and ordained from the beginning, so all God needed to do was to place "that thing" into his mother's womb.
The Eastern Orthodox in fact hold to the view that God created only Adam's soul and that his soul (now affected by the Fall) is passed on from generation to generation by the parents (even of course received Adam's soul through his living flesh and bone). This way we inherit the consequences of Adam's Fall ...
I've never heard that one before. :) If we don't have individual souls then what gets sent to Heaven or hell? Jesus refers to individual souls many times (see Matt. 6:26, above), so how is that explained?
The predominant Roman Catholic and I believe mainline Protestant belief is that God creates a soul at the moment of conception. This means that Creation is not complete! This also raises the question at which point does our soul then become defective due to the effects of the ancestral sin.
Good question. I don't know the timing on this.
FK: "The idea of us being His instruments is found here, for example: Acts 9:15."
That, of course, is anecdotal. We know that Acts and Galatians are not always in perfect harmony.
Anecdotal? Are we told why this wouldn't apply across the board? I don't think so. Why does it not sound right that God uses us as His physical instruments to partially implement His plan? ...... Depending on what you mean by "perfect harmony", how do we know that Acts and Galatians don't match?
Well, yes, to bare again, she conceived again.
These twins had different fathers.....paternal twins
Does not follow. That his father was Satan is further contradicted by "I have gotten a man from the LORD."
"She conceived again and bare.." is a very common construction. She bare again, she conceived again, they go together. "From a different father, at the same time, paternal twins..?" No support whatsoever here at Cain's birth.
Why do you think the Holy Spirit caused the Apostle John to record this?
[1 John 3:12] Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
Does not follow. That his father was Satan is further contradicted by "I have gotten a man from the LORD."
Are you sure? Maybe if John would have said, "half brother".....instead? John does not say that Abel was of that wicked one.
Um, because Cain committed murder?
A question for you: If a non-Kenite maries a Kenite, is their offspring Kenite? Another in the line of Satan’s offspring?
Then....you seem to think that Cain was of "Himself"? This is [1 John 3:12] from the Douay-Rheims: Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one, and killed his brother. And wherefore did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked: and his brother's just.
Just who do you suppose.....was this "wicked" one.....Cain was of? Clue....it wasn't Cain!
A question for you: If a non-Kenite marries a Kenite, is their offspring Kenite? Another in the line of Satan’s offspring?
I do not subscribe to Ping-Pong's understanding of the Kenites. Here we disagree.
Of does not = son of. And your question becomes less impossible to make any meaning of.
Rephrasing my question: If Cain was the spawn of Satan, were all his descendents also? If “yes” are those who marry a descendent of Cain and have children producing further descendants of Satan.
I gave it a chance and watched this thread since you pinged me, and my opinion is this thread should be locked or pulled.
Please, no more pings to this kind of tripe!
No it doesn't. The verse says "those who love him." The serpent loved Him?
The verse says "WORKS FOR THE GOOD OF those who love him". God was not working FOR the good of the serpent when He let him into the garden. Look what happened to the serpent!!! :) Instead, even though it sounds counterintuitive, God was working for our good when He let the serpent in.
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.
Sounds good, but what is an innocent little outsider like me supposed to think? :) The operative and magic word used by many Apostolics around here is that we "COOPERATE" with God. In the normal use of the word, when I think of cooperate, I think of partner, even if an unequal partner, but partner nonetheless. Further, in your view, the "whatever" of man is absolutely necessary for salvation. That is more than just servitude, it is required cooperation (or whatever). Again, if it is required, then that signals a partnership.
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.
For anything that matters to God's plan, God chooses the conditions and we follow our natures to the degree He allows. We make the decisions and pull the proverbial trigger. We are accountable.
In either case, God is in control through foreknowledge of our free will or through pre-progamming of our decisions.
How is God possibly in control if He totally defers to the whims of men to do anything they want. Knowing ahead of time there is going to be random anarchy, and refusing to do anything about it because man must control his own destiny, is NOT being in control. :)
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.
It would make me feel great if it was only true! :) If men have the power to direct God's plan in this direction or that direction because of his free will choices, then man absolutely has a say in how the plan will work. You have God working around our choices.
Does not follow.
Are you sure?
Yes I'm sure. The point was that "she had paternal twins" does not logically follow from: "a woman conceived again." And it doesn't.
It's just not there.
Your "bare again" theory further falls apart when you notice this phrasing applies to ABEL not Cain. Cain's conception directly follows "Adam knew his wife" and precedes "..a man from the Lord."
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.Yet we are to believe that Genesis left out "Cain, whose father was Satan" as too unimportant to mention during the child's conception and birth.
And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
I’m gonna reply to your post just to clean my palate.
Why do you think free will results in random anarchy?
I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that his genealogy came before Adam's....and there is some similarity in names. The scriptures point only to Noah "being perfect in his generations" [Genesis 6:9] These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
Because of this scripture I would be led to believe all other lines of descent were somehow tainted....and this was the reason for God bringing the flood.
Perfect: 8549. tamiym (taw-meem')without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright(-ly), whole.
In his generations: 1755. dowr (dore)a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling; age, X evermore, generation, (n-)ever, posterity.
If you don’t mind, tell me again what church you attend?
Very well said, dearest sister in Christ!
Sure it is. You cannot (won't) see it because it disturbs your theology.
There are too many indicators that this was something more than just eating an apple!
Yet we are to believe that Genesis left out "Cain, whose father was Satan" as too unimportant to mention during the child's conception and birth.
Don't you believe this is a good indicator of what you say is not there? [Genesis 3:15-16] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Why is the Lord talking conception, pregnancy and seed here? Up to this point it appears that this would be an unknown concept to them.
Seriously though, I do not worry about evil spirits.
I love God absolutely. I believe Him. I trust Him. I’ve cast all my burdens to His wind. My fate is in His hands.
Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. – Philippians 4:7-8
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. – Psalms 23:4
My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. – John 10:29
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. – James 4:2
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Tim 1:12
[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. – Hebrews 13:5
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. – 1 John 4:18
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.