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.
No, no, it wasn't meant to be a smear. You got it all wrong. Look, you said;
"Maybe the crack whore in your example was convinced that she's not on Calvin's list, so why bother trying to be good? Or maybe she was convinced that she IS on Calvin's list, so why bother to be good? Maybe your crack whore decided she's saved by faith alone, and so can so is free to engage in all the crackwhoring she wants."
"Most likely", your crack whore's behavior is the result of Calvin's shoddy doctrine
So all that I was trying to do was answer your maybes and most likely with the most logical and most reasonable answer under the circumstances i.e. a confession to a pedophile priest. That makes sense since under your scenario, she keeps on in her habitual sin.
Gotcha..
MY scenario?
LOL
Thanks . . .
Alas . . . I’m going to be my own deplored hit and run driver tonight . . .
more prep to do for the new semester at the college beginning on Monday.
But I had to throw in . . . welll . . . maybe 3 cents worth.
Thanks for your kind welcome.
Yes, and God is doing the leading. And He’s promised not to let go, even when I step on His toes. 8~)
= = =
Thankfully, there is that.
“LOL”
I hope so. I bought a Power Ball ticket for tonight.
Many denominations are Arminian(works).. The Arminian vs Calvinists is another spirit war on FR..
Feel free to disagree. I won't equate your response to Stalin.
Most likely the crack whore’s behavior is the result of poor/or missing parenting. Human nature, according to scripture, is bent toward behavior that is fruit of a Sin nature, a nature Jesus was faithful even unto the death of the Cross to blot out for those who will elect to have His Grace. If the specific Saved were decided before the worlds began why would God tell us that ‘faithful is He that calleth you for He will also do it’, then tell us that ‘many are called but few are chosen’ because so few will let Him do it. If I look out at the street and see a car run a redlight and kill a dog, I’m not responsible for the dog’s death, I just witnessed it. My seeing the death in no way makes me responsible for the dogs choice of paths.
Here's a hint. I never called for either book to be banned, let alone burned.
Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant.
Well, what level of understanding do you require for Christian belief? That Jesus and the Spirit are God is evident enough from the scripture. Superficial reading reveals Christ as God. I was told about the Trinity before I believed, without figuring it out by myself, but so what? The perspicuity of scripture gives any reasonable reader enough to ask for salvation without teachers.
I don't see any trouble because I cannot recall the verse that says that satan is more powerful than God. While satan can outwit me alone, satan cannot snatch me out of God's hands.
Have you ever heard of Adam and Eve?
How do you figure satan snatched them out of God's hands? Think about it, the Fall was not at all permanent as to their eternity. If they were given by the Father, then they are in Heaven today. satan loses. They sinned, and they were punished. Same with us. If God moved them to later repent and accept God in a salvational sense, then they were saved. Same with us.
Presumably, if they had never sinned, then they would still be there today, waiting for an occasional visit by God. Would you rather want that or would you want to be in God's presence all the time in Heaven? It's a no brainer for me. :)
It is no wonder we have such a violent society, FK. It's based on the Protestant notion that no matter what one does, he is safe as long as you call on Jesus (it's that pecca fortiter again...).
LOL! That answer ranks the same to me as "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!". For all intents and purposes, the ONLY people who believe in your view are Apostolics who accuse it of Protestants. If you really think that true believing Protestants think it's fine for them to commit murder because they are already forgiven for it, AND that the prevalence of this is bringing society as a whole down, then I will just have to leave you to this view. There is nothing I can say. We are laughing, though. :)
“My seeing the death in no way makes me responsible”
How about you know the bridge is out and stop in time and you see a car coming and it is obvious they are oblivious to the peril and you fail to warn them. Any responsibility?
The three personages of the Unity:
Who Raised Jesus From the Dead?
*GALATIANS 1:1 . . . God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) {cf. 1 Thess 1:10}
<>ROMANS 8:11 . . . the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, . . .
+JOHN 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
What does the word "election" mean in Scripture? ("Election" is used six times in the Bible.)
One assumes you must have some understanding of the word "election" in order to dismiss the concept so quickly.
God not only made Adam in His own image (free to choose), He built into the spacetime universe of our perception the uncertainty principle which underlies all free choice positioning. In His sovereignty, He could have walked away from the Cross and right back to Heaven without dying. His faithfulness to His promises lead through the Cross to the Resurrection and our ability to choose His Grace over our fallen nature destiny. I won’t argue these points so have a nice evening.
Here's a hint: it bears little recognition to the UGLY, UNBIBLICAL distortions of Calvin.
I have been telling them this for the longest time Mark. If we are predetermined then prayers mean nothing; they are then only empty repetitions.
It never occurs to them to ask if the reprobate are also created in God's image, and if so why are they condemned for something they had no control over? It makes a mockery of God, it makes a mockery of our sin against God (because God orchestrates it), it makes Judas an innocent obedient servant of God who just got the "unlucky number" along with the Pharaoh and Lot's curious wife (talk about curiosity killed a wife!)...to name just a few.
It makes a mockery of man's fall and ultimately of Christ's own surfing and death. It was God (the Father) who arranged to have His son killed for his own glory...They can't even get their own name right: it's deformed not reformed.
It makes Adam and Eve God's sacrificial lambs, born and raised for slaughter. He makes them pristine and naive with the intent and knowledge that they will fail, because He created them to fail! He sets them up for a failure so that He can punish them and all subsequent generations until His own Son must die to satisfy God's offended (sic) ego. they just can never explain: Why would God ever be "offended" IF HE IS SOVEREIGN and IN CONTROL and nothing happens without His approval?
Ultimately they will tell you that God created evil because He created everything! They treat evil as "creation." This is what happens when a book that was not meant to be interpreted by every Dick and Jerry becomes every Dick's and Jerry's personal "God."
Oooh, you may have touched a raw nerve here...you may get the chance to meet that bunch too. It gets better, Mark.
One of them once wrote to me to be careful for hosepipe may not be mortal. Is that true Hose? You are immortal? If so, are you shackled in a body as a "punishment?"
Matthew 7:6
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.