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.
Believing you are elect does not mean you are elect. If you are elect, the fruits of the spirit will be manifest. Luther's point was that it is God who will see you through to the end and you need not rely upon yourself to save yourself. If God has purchased your salvation, there is nothing you can do to undo what God did for you. If, in fact, you spit in God's face by deliberately sinning with the idea that God will forgive you, then you are deluded and you are not elect.
So knock off the silly strawman arguments. You are above that.
With eyes wide shut
No Eden, no Flood, no Ark, No Return,
This is nothing more than the Jesus Seminar with an Orthodox bent. Let's vote with different colored beads in front of an Icon. Let's automatically reject anything that sounds supernatural, because we all know that the supernatural is impossible.
Who was Jesus?
Nice guy, friendly guy...had some religious tendencies. Got killed for them.
The disciples believed he "rose again" in their hearts. And He'll return some day...."in their hearts."
Absolutely return and focus on the original texts is important. If you listen to many English sermons though (the ‘better’ ones in my opinion), you will find that there is care taken to examine the texts in original languages as well. Similarly, it is never the text alone which enlightens us, but always the text read with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
There have been misconceptions and poor teachings even when people have relied upon the Greek. I’ll have to examine your point on baptiso a bit later, but translators of the Bible in any language use the most extant primary sources as their guide.
Could you elaborate on which passages use baptiso, and which use bapto, as this might help clarify the point.
They don't have to believe in the scriptures because they have their church and, of course, their church could never steer them wrong.
How do they know?
Because the scriptures tell them so.
The Orthodox call Mary the Theotokos, which is the Ark which carried God. Yet they are some free (if not encouraged) to deny the existence of the Ark, or the truth of Exodus and the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of stone that were carried in the Ark of the Covenant.
By denying the Exodus and the Ark they essentially deny the basis upon which Mary became the Ark, the Theotokos. If there was no Ark, then there was no God carrier in Mary. The Orthodox undermine their own beliefs by their disbelief.
Geological evidence shows that no such thing occurred (worldwide). Are we to believe a myth, which by all accounts the Hebrews may have borrowed from the (older) Babylonian accounts, just as the birth of Moses is a strikingly similar Babylonian story, but never consider real geological evidence?
I wonder how many people who take the Bible for literal truth refuse medicine and depend on prayer alone? They don't mind the benefits of science (radio, tv, cell phones, etc.) but when it comes to geological evidence we go by mythoogy. Go figure.
So do all dead children go to heaven?
The Bible doesn't say. Forest Keeper believes so and the Orthodox don't discount that God can save anyone He wishes, but anyone who believes unbaptized children go to heaven do so on their own (extra-biblical) conviction.
If so, then Forest's contention that God sometimes kills off children in order to show mercy upon them would be true.
That's a big "if" and it's not scriptural. Personally, I think to suggest that God is showing His "mercy" by killing children is, frankly, grotesque.
If God does not want you to die, you are indestructible
So, God kills everyone? That is just incredible! In fact, that is unrecognizable to me as an Orthodox Christian! That means God, who is Life, created death. He "preordained" all of us to die. From which we must logically conclude that the Fall in the Garden had nothing to do with our mortality: it was all preordained by a wrathful God before the foundations of the world.
The more I read these various Protestant versions of theology, the more I believe Professor Kalomiros was correct about western "Christianity" when he said Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God! (Prof. Alexander Kalomiros, "River of Fire")
We die, P-Marlowe, because through the sin of Adam our nature became separated from God, our and destined to death. It was not His doing, but ours. The fact that he knows when everyone will die is simply his foreknowledge, and foreknoweldge doesn't kill.
God is life, not death.
The Protestant doctrine of salvation is not the doctrine the Church followed from the beginnng. Yours has roots in the 12th century (Anselm) juridical idea of satisfaction together with an offended, angry and wrathful God. All this is alien to authentic Christianity. No one is bought against his will. God knocks on everyone’s hearts. Some respond and let Him in and die unto themsleves, following God unto salvation; others reject Him and follow their nature unto perdition.
Theo means "God" and tokos means "birth-giver." There is no Ark in it.
Your expertise is amazing.
Bapto...Luke 16:24, John 13;26, Rev 19:13
Baptizo...numerous references (if you are using KJV, baptizo is translated as baptize[d] and bapto as dip[ped]).
Also, it is important to note that while dipping (bapto) is associated only with the "wetting," such as dipping hands into a bowl, baptizo—in addition to being repetitive—imparts permanent change (such as pickling)!
Biological evidence shows that there was no resurrection.
On that note, I agree. :)
I will never take man's word over that of God
All those who trust their own interpretations take their own words for God's.
I know that there was a Massoratic text that kept it from being changed
Without vowels and punctuation marks.
The Bible is what we have and the most sure way I know to be certain of the meaning is to study the KJV
I strongly recommend you read up on the history of KJV, its foundation —Textus Receptus—and the corrupt latter-day Greek sources it used as genuine. Part of John's Gospel in Textus Receptus was retro-translated from Latin into Greek by the author whose Greek was very poor. Other sections were included directly from the unreliable Latin Vulgate (mind you TR was supposed to be a genuine "Greek" text).
KJV contains a latter-day addition in 1 John known as Comma Johanneum. I believe you need to read about that too. It is not whether we agree with it, but the fact that it was "slipped" into the NT and is clearly a forgery.
One can only wonder how many other verses were conveniently "slipped" into various parts of the Bible and everyone is saying "it must be true, it's in the Bible!"
The oldest Bibles date to the mid 4th centuries. The oldest manuscripts (fragments) are incomplete and more a curiosity than "proof" of any continuity. The language and content of the oldest bibles is in disagreement with each other and with the next oldest complete Bible, Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), which is a mixture of different text-types and very obviously redacted in more than one way.
If you are going to hang your faith on the Bible it helps to know everything about the Bible because chances are what you are reading is not what they were reading on scrolls in the first century.
The fragments, which are copies of copies, yield very little information. The variety of copies that exist is staggering. Prof. Metzger, one of more prominent biblical scholars, once said "we have 10 fragments and 12 different versions!"
They look at fragments with the same verses, and see how they differ. It is frightening how many of them are there. The dead sea Scrolls have still not been identified in their entirety. It is then a painstaking job to determine which is closer to the 'original' as they may differ in one (crucial) word. Thus Psalm 151 appears in Hebrew in the DSS and in Septuagint, but not in any of the Massoretic OT books.
There is a lot more to knowing the Bible than meets the eye. The worst thing one can do, in my opinion, is to open a fresh copy of some established Bible version and assume that these are the words "exactly as God wrote them." It is commendable that some people approach it that way, but the hard evidence points to a different conclusion.
Take, for instance the Greek word bapto and baptiso. Both mean dipping, but baptiso means dipping repeatedly and causing permanent change! Your KJV translates baptiso as baptize. So the baptists/Protestants baptize by immersion once. Yet baptizo means multiple dippings, as opposed to bapto, which suggests one dipping.
Thus, incorrect translation led to incorrect practice of immersing only once.
You are changing the subject. I didn't say Flood is not possible, just that no evidence shows that there was a world-wide flood.
It never ceases to amaze me how—it appears—the Protestants/Baptists always read the "me-me-me" into the scriptures by taking verses out of context. Yes, FK, the sabbath was made for man to rest. Sabbath was not given to man to play, booze up, pursue hobbies or chase women, but to devote entirely to God.
We're talking about a guy doing a wholesome hobby on a Sunday and this is your response? :) Do you Freep outside the Religion Forum on Sundays? :)
... so I simply suggest to read all references regarding observance of the sabbath. You will not find one that says anything else but complete rest.
But, as BD was saying, one man's rest is another man's work. What defines the line? Or from another angle, if a man's job requires him to tend the counter on Sunday in order to feed his family, how is he not serving the Lord?
And, conversely, that one should consider, not the letter, but the intent of the law in following it.
Then why can't a man rest on the Sabbath by enjoying his hobby? Is the real intent of the law to sit motionless except for church on Sunday?
The group was hungry and picking some heads of grain in the field. They weren't stealing or killing or committing any crime, so it wasn't "work" and it wasn't "fun."
Does God have something against "fun" on Sundays?
It is the most important day in the week. Sunday gives meaning to our faith. Sunday is the Lord's Day not "our" day.
I suppose ideally, we would strive to make every day the Lord's day.
Again, out-of-context quotes. St. Paul was talking about food laws to which the Jews were bound. He was simply saying that you will have to account to God for what you do and eat, and not to other people. He says what you eat should reflect your conviction of what is right towards God, and not your judgment of others. But that doesn't mean we will not be accountable for what we do or eat.
You say I'm out of context, and I say you are using selective application. That might help you to counter Col. 2:16-17, but it doesn't touch Rom 14:5-6. With the former a very weak case could be made to segregate the whole thing to food. But in the latter there is no argument at all for this. The first part is about the Sabbath, the second is about food. It seems like the whole force of your argument is very Pharisaic in that if you play football on Sunday, YOU'RE SINNING, or if you bake cookies for your family on Sunday, YOU'RE SINNING. Here you are, yet I thought you just got through telling us that this is the wrong approach.
No you dismiss it because there is no verifiable evidence. You dismiss the Exodus because there is no verifiable evidence. You dismiss much of what Jesus attested to because there is no verifiable evidence.
But there is certainly no verifiable evidence of the existence of Christ, much less his virgin birth or his miracles or his resurrection.
Frankly kosta, I really don't know what you believe other than that your church is the only true church and that it alone is somehow infallible.
On what basis do you claim the infallibility of your church?
Where does it say that?
Where does what say what? Is there any dispute about whether God wants lay believers to understand His word as written? If not, then are you asking for Sola Scriptura verses? I'd be happy to give some again, but I would have guessed that you've already seen them, even recently. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. I'm trying to show how the term "perspicuity" is used by those who believe in it.
FK: "perspicuity does not exclude the goodness and necessity of teachers."
Then don't call it "perspicuity" because that which is clear is intelligible.
"Clear" is different from "simple". "Clear" means the truth is in there, by itself. Yes, it is intelligible. The level of "simple" is the degree to which it is discernible with or without help. The basics of faith are both clear and very simple, such that a child could understand them. OTOH, the nature of grace is clear, but not very simple. Therefore, there are views all over the place.
FK: "To any child of the age of reason ..."
That is an oxymoron actually. If for one moment we believed that 7-year-olds are capable of knowing right from wrong we should issue them driving licenses and let them purchase beer.
Do you think that knowledge of right and wrong is an instantaneous event? On some issues, I'm STILL learning right from wrong. Aren't we all, and forever will be on earth? But for other issues, like the basics of salvation, a 7-year-old CAN understand.
Science tells us that even teens don't have fully developed frontal lobes and cannot think abstractly enough to comprehend danger. Yet, you will tell me that a 5-year-old can grasp the meaning of faith and salvation?
Unfortunately, with my teenagers, it's not their lobes that I'm worried about right now. Anyway, there is some scripture on this:
Mark 10:13-16 : 13 People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
I'm not positive, but wasn't a 13-year-old male considered a "man" in those days? If so, then that leaves the window for "little child" between "infant" and 13 years (cf. Isa. 11:8). That just so happens to be the age group we are talking about.
FK: "In many cases that leading would be through human teachers."
Wrong. The leading is never through human authority but through the authority given in Christ's promise that whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Since when in the universe do you know me to give any authority to humans??? LOL! :) I said THROUGH humans, not BY humans. The leading is done all by God.
But your sentence doesn't make sense to me. You appear to be saying that the leading IS INDEED by human authority, but not because man said so, but because Christ said so. So for you, ultimately it seems it really IS through human authority.
I will stick with what Scripture tells me.
HA! AMEN, my friend. :) I stole your verse just before I read this. Great minds I guess. :)
Good list, thanks Ping. :) I agree with Kosta on the funniest one. But be assured that we do both love our wives very much. :)
How can I die because of the sin of a Myth, as you have insinuated about that story, and Eden, and Serpent, etc.?
I don't need salvation from a myth. I just need a rewrite. :>)
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.