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.
True.. if the pearl is spirit/Spirit then oneness takes on a different character.. one pearl many many coatings of pearl essence plus the base grain of sand/"stone".. i.e. the body of christ = many coatings..
As I noted earlier, this is false under the Apostolic view. That is because you retain the free will (and power) to snatch yourselves out of God's hands at any time and AGAINST HIS WILL. There is no total surrender in faith here, you must retain control of your destinies.
But YOU do not accept the scriptures. I am not a Calvinist, but I recognize that Calvinism is sound biblical theology. You, however, have no biblical theology.
Who knows it was a musing/speculation not a bible class..
You seem to have missed my meme of oneness suggests many spirits are one spirit.. as in small drops of water are the same stuff as one big drop.. Water could be a metaphor of spirit as is "air/wind" is..
Well, I don't think God keeps anything like a time-sheet that says that so many hours of prayer, worship and Bible study are "good" and anything less is "bad". God created each of us differently, so the true answer to that for each of us would be different. The ideal is to be "right" with God, however God measures that INDIVIDUALLY.
As with most regulars on the Religion Forum, God has blessed me with a certain kind of mind that is able to attempt to search out the micro-particulars of scriptures and debate them for the mutual edification of all participants and lurkers. He has given me at least a modicum command of the primary language, and blah blah blah, same with all of us. However, of course that isn't true of most true believers.
When you and I go at it in a public forum all day and night on some theological point, I feel doubly blessed because I get to use the gifts God gave me and witness for Him at the same time. The same for you. So answering this post would be my version of BD's hypothetical woodworking. It is certainly "work" for me because I have to think very hard and carefully, and I have to do research. But at the same time, I think it serves the Lord's purpose for people like us to have these discussions, and for others to see them. AND, I enjoy it tremendously! :)
Now, what about people who do not share the abilities and gifts that we do, and whose talents and inclinations do not include theological thought and debate? Are they lesser in God's eyes because their time-cards do not look like ours? Of course not. My point is that the AMOUNT of time given which makes a person "right" with God HAS to be individualized based on how He has moved our hearts and what gifts He has given us. I really don't think the intent of how we were supposed to spend every hour of the Sabbath was supposed to be a "one size fits all" scenario (monks, for example). Rules were given, of course, but they appear to me to lend themselves open to common sense, and God-serving, interpretation.
You know, Protestants/Baptists tell us that God created the world for His own glory and not for man. Yet somehow everyone thinks Sunday, the Lord's Day, is more about us and our needs than about God.
You're right, and it is a shame on all Christian faiths. I'm just asking for the possibility that God doesn't slam a true believer (CRITICAL distinction) for not being able to do what he cannot do because his gifts are not in certain areas. All saved men can earnestly pray and (if it's available) spend good time in scripture. Not all can do it with the intensity and duration of others.
Let's say that Adolf Hitler is in hell.
Did that surprise God or did God always know it?
True, just from memory the magic year was somewhere around 1054.
The Orthodox and Roman wings, along with the rest, are more cultural than anything else. The theology is consistent and it is accurate.
What??? :) On matters Latin and Orthodox I admittedly know little, but for what I do know, I've been taught by the best. :)
Your theology is GREATLY and IMPORTANTLY the same as that of the Orthodox, but there are SUBSTANTIAL differences. You CANNOT lay off the fact that you are not in communion with each other on culture. I think it's a little more serious than that. :) Not being in communion is a HUGE deal. So, why would you say you are not in communion with the Orthodox?
Of course, Jesus says from the outset that Judas was doomed. Didn't Jesus say that He chose 12 and that one was a devil?
Where's the modifying, conditional statement from Jesus such as: "...one is a devil UNLESS he repents." or "...one is a devil IF he doesn't change."
But, Jesus didn't say that, did He?
Do you clean yourself, or are you cleansed by the blood of Jesus?
Is not the blood of Christ sufficient?
And it is a concern and not an accusation.
I understand you to be a person pursuing God.
You’re right, a lot of what the Apostles taught may not have been written down. But in their letters to various churches, they addressed the most important aspects, as well as the most common heresies. Would God have allowed something vitally important to salvation to be forgotten? The authors may have been men, but the words of scipture are breathed from God, and He is a reliable source.
If the number of immersions was vitally important, would they not have put that down?
We are not aware that the whole of the early church practiced triple immersion. Our source material here is limited, but as far as I’m aware, the number of immersions was not a matter of contention.
I agree that the most logical formula would be three immersions, and this is entirely valid from both a logicl and symbolic level... but is salvation a matter of formulae and ritual? Does salvation depend upon men following a ritual?
Or is salvation dependant entirely upon God? If it is dependant upon God, is it ritual and the symbolism/ritual of men that is important, or the spirit and truth which are written in our hearts?
If you were to die right now do you believe you are sinless?
After Adam’s sin, the gates of Heaven were closed, and no one was allowed to enter (John 3:13) until Jesus Christ redeemed the human race and opened the gates once again. Where were the spirits of Moses and Elias, who appeared and spoke with Jesus at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3)? They could not have been in Heaven since it was closed, and they would have been lost had they been in hell. They had to have been in a third place. If there was a third place then, why not a third place now?
What about Lazarus? He was already dead four days (John 11:17) when Jesus arrived at his tomb. Where was his soul during those four days? It could not be heaven or hell for the same reasons as for Moses and Elias.
His soul had to have been in a third place.
Lets look at Scripture Luke12:58-59...
“If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison. “
“I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
Released from Where?
Released from Hell? Nobodys getting out of hell, brother,hell is forever!
Released from Heaven?Nonsense!
Paid back the last penny of what?
Paid back the last penny for temporal punishment due to sin
Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife
Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.
Listen to the words of many of protestant’s favorite Saint....
“And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of those of whom it is said, that they ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ unless after suitable repentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say ‘suitable,’ I mean that they are not to be unfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on this virtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no merit to those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect to those on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to the former, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom,” and to the latter, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.’” Augustine, Enchiridion, 69 (A.D. 421).
Personally, I hope I will at least make it to purgatory someday.
Every funeral I have attended always seems to turn into a Canonization ceremony of the deceased.
When I die ,I want people to pray for my soul!
Time for Mass!
I wish you a Blessed Day!
If I were to die right now, the blood of Christ would cleanse me from all sin. I am not my own savior. I cannot earn a spot in heaven.
If you think you can earn your way into heaven or that you can somehow atone for your own sins, then you are probably not ever going to make it into heaven.
Well, you can remove the word "probably" from that sentence.
The elect who are already believers know it because the Holy Spirit has touched and changed their hearts to give them faith (or, if you like, to infallibly lead them to choose to have faith). Through this faith men are saved. By this same God-given faith men know that they may count on and rely on God's promises made to us in scripture. And I'm not talking about the synthesized and retrofitted promises that come from the Magisterium. I'm just talking about the plain text promises, such as John 3:16 (denied its clear AND simple meaning by the Magisterium -- [see earlier discussion of perspicuity]). By these Biblical promises, men may know that they are saved, and are therefore, by definition, of the elect.
[continuing:] If you knew that you weren’t [of the elect] how would your behaviour change?
It wouldn't change at all. If I KNEW that I wasn't of the elect then I would have supernatural powers, or a special revelation, unknown to virtually all men in history. And, in today's world and since I am basically human, that would most likely make me the anti-Christ himself. :) Anti-Christ is the only one who can KNOW he is not elect. Now, please notice the MAMMOTH difference between this and knowing if one is saved with assurance.
One is elect or not from all eternity. It is black and white, true or false, whether (or when) we know it or not. "Saved" is a different animal. When we talk about "saved" it totally matters whether we know it or not, in normal conversation. "Saved" is what happens when we accept Christ, nevermind that we have been elect all along and never knew it.
Absolutely.
The entire purpose of communion is to "remember His death..."
That is, we are to remember the sacrifice for our sins. Why would that be?
Jesus said in , Mt 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." From this we know that the Lord seeks sinners, AND that He seeks them permanently, because He speaks of His NATURE in this passage. His nature is to be MERCIFUL.
This is expanded upon by Paul (?) in Hebrews 10:14 when he says that "by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy."
The single, most important, unrepeatable sacrifice in all creation has been made. It is of such extent that John can say If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
The "we" to whom John refers are Christians....the addressees of his letter. He is saying that when Christians sin, they are forgiven by a repentant acknowledging (confessing) of their sin -- not by any additional sacrifice.
That sacrifice was once for all.
Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life," Jn. 5:24
Water could be a metaphor of spirit as is "air/wind" is..
That could be, but the pearl comes out of the "sea," which is a metaphor for "nations" Revelation 17:15.
I'm following this.. I hope others are too..
Quite honest and forth coming answers.. The illogic of purgatory is breathtaking.. not to speak of several other abstractions..
Since, you quoted scripture as your authority for coming to this knowledge, using the verse below (Jesus talking to His Disciples) that you quoted to me or other Gospel references you mention please show me where these scriptures authorize the RCC’s infallibility.
John 16:13-15
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.
led by the HS to interpret the Scriptures as they will,
Being led by the Holy Spirit, the interpretation will be as He wills. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit indwells you? If yes, then what is His purpose in abiding with you? If no, why not?
For the record: I believe that scriptures represent a revelation of God, but not literal truth, encyclopedia, or textbook.
Taken together as a whole, it is a parable mixed with historical facts and myths; with actual quotes and paraphrased statements, influenced by, and reflecting the culture, the age and the beliefs of the times.
It is also filled with human additions and deletions.
I have no proof that the Bible is a revelation of God. I believe that it is, but the basis of my belief is completely irrational , as all beliefs are. The bible itself serves as no proof of its own veracity.
We have no way of knowing what the original looked like or whether even there was an a "original."
Almost all of the books are anonymous. Their authorship is dubious and often assigned for convenience. Books such as Isaiah, Daniel, etc., are by all accounts compilations of various authors over an extended period of time, stitched together into a single story around 5th century BC.
We have no way of authenticating any of the verses in the bible as genuine, even if their message, their moral teaching, their spiritual revelation appear true to us.
We know that verses, sometimes as many as a dozen, sometimes whole paragraphs have been added or deleted. We don't know which verse is "closer" to the "original" because all the copies we have are copies of copies, even the oldest ones, even the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I am a great supporter of textual criticism, but I completely reject any notion that—just because this method may show us deliberate or accidental errors and human fingerprints in the bible—it automatically attests to the veracity of the scripture as "literal truth."
I do not 'interpret' the bible. I defer the spiritual meaning (i.e. interpretation) of the scriptures to the combined wisdom and knowledge of the Church, which has remained steadfastly unchanged in 2000 years.
I cannot accept the Christian canon, a product of the Church, as scripture AND reject the authority and knowledge of the Church, as the Protestants/Baptists and other denominations do.
I cannot, on the one hand, acknowledge the knowledge of the Church to select—without error—which of the books are truly inspired, AND, on the other hand, deny its ability to interpret without error!
Charges that the Church at some point became "disqualified" to interpret without error are without any substance. One's skills are independent of character or behavior.
You are denying my faith because I don't buy into the run-of-the-mill acceptance of the bible as some literal word of God which, to me, is childish and silly, given what we know about the bible.
To suggest that one's own faith is an absolute "proof" that the bible is exactly as God "wrote" it is founded on flawed reasoning. Our own faith in something is no proof that it is absolutely true.
But you are suggesting that because I do not accept the bible as you do I have no foundation of faith and no theology, or—to quote you—"you have nothin' Kosta."
I hope you recognize the flaw in your own convictions, and if you don't I hope that you will one day before it's too late.
Sin is not in the act of doing or thinking or believing something wrong, but in the intention .
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.