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.
What do have?.. money?, property?, concepts?, truths?, facts?, well SELL THEM.. SELL THEM to purchase the pearl of great price..
I did not realize that we were so far apart on this issue. I believe that it is Christ who paid the "Great Price" so that we could receive the free gift.
But then some of us read the Reformers, read the Institutes, read the Westminster and Heidelberg Confessions. But most importantly, we went back to the Bible and read it with new eyes and ears. And we heard, often for the first time, that God really is who He says He is in Scripture. If God is sovereign and the creator of all things, and if Scripture is true, then nothing is outside His perfect plan for all creation.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:9-10"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
The logic of who God says He is is overwhelming. If God created everything, and God knows everything, and nothing is unknown to God, and if God is complete and whole and in need of nothing, then it follows that what occurs in life is exactly what God intends to occur, one way or the other. As Joseph learned...
"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." -- Genesis 50:20
And if God knows "the end from the beginning," then of course God knows the names of those who are His children and He has known this from before the foundation of the world because He decreed it. If those names weren't as God desired, then those names would be different.
This is the assurance that the world conspires to keep from Christians -- that God really and truly wrote the names of His children in the Book of Life from before they were even born, before they could do anything to merit their salvation...
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
The amazing clarity that falls into place when we realize that God is in control is a gift given to His children so that they will trust Him completely. To God alone be the glory.
I pity those who've put their trust in men and magick and magisteriums when the Bible is the voice of the Holy Spirit and all we need to do is listen and learn.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
The RCC would have us believe (since we've seen RC posters even ridicule these words by Christ on this very thread) that Christ's instructions are not enough and that faith must be adorned with works and perpetual blood sacrifices and prayers to wooden idols. As a consistent Christian, I have to believe that God did just as He said He was going to do -- some He quickened and "delivered from evil," and some He did not...
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:3-15"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who really knows the heart of another man? Who knows how much idolatry is hidden within our minds which Calvin called "an idol factory?" Without the certain knowledge that God guides His children along every step any of us can become idol-worshippers, trusting in the traditions of men and our own leadings instead of the tradition of Christ's words and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The mass is a mass of abominations, a mass of hell's own concocting, a crying insult against the Lord of glory. It is not to be spoken of in any terms but those of horror and detestation. Whenever I think of another sacrifice for sin being offered, by whomever it may be presented, I can only regard it as an infamous insult to the perfection of the Savior's work." -- Charles Spurgeon"But some truths ought to be kept back from the people," you will say, "lest they should make an ill use thereof." That is Popish doctrine. It was upon that very theory that the priests kept back the Bible from the people. They did not give it to them lest they should misuse it. Besides all this, remember that men do read the Scriptures and think about these doctrines and often make mistakes about them. Who then shall set them right if we who preach the Word hold our tongues about the matter?
Nope. Where do you get that?
Christ died for everyone,that includes the people who ended up in hell.
By your standard all one has to to is just believe in Christ and continue to sin all they want and God HAS to accept them into heaven
I wonder how many people who are in hell thought the same thing?
BTW, When we die completely to the will Christ our "works" are in Christ.
You seem to be confused about what works really are.
He DID pay that price.. but that does not mean a price is not expected OF YOU..
Example.. Parable of the "Rich young ruler that was wealthy" AND "the Talents" AND several other parables.. Jesus through parable indicates "WE" must pay a price to "pick up our OWN cross and follow him".. If you're "poor in spirit" then the "price" is less meaningful TO YOU.. If you're "rich in spirit" then the price is more costly.. TO YOU.. The metaphor is schere genius I would say.. and puts the concepts of "rich" and "poor" in proper context..
You have missed that people don't sin as much as people ARE SIN..
Humans ARE SIN.. from the top of thier head to the bottom of their feet..
Including YOU.. Thats WHY......
"You MUST be born again"... -Jesus... Duuugh..
As Charles Spurgeon came to realize, what specifically has God not helped us with in our coming to salvation? God causes us to repent. He causes us to pray. He causes us to ask forgiveness. It is through His empowerment and His Holy Spirit that we are able to do any of this.
In 1Peter 3:19, Christ preached to the spirits in prison. What spirits? What prison? We will become pure spirits only after we die, so the spirits have to be the spirits of the dead. Prison cannot mean Heaven, and souls in hell are lost forever. Prison must mean a third place.
1Peter 4:6, the Gospel was preached "even to the dead". Again, where were these dead?
Matthew 12:32, "...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this world or in the world to come." This passage alludes to another world in which some sins will be forgiven. What other world? Again it could not be either Heaven or hell. Hebrews 12:23, "...and to the Church of the Firstborn who are enrolled in the heavens, and to GOD, THE JUDGE OF ALL AND TO THE SPIRITS OF THE JUST MADE PERFECT."
We see from Revelation 21:27 that nothing imperfect will enter heaven, and in Hebrews 12:23, the spirits of the just are made perfect. Revelation 22:14 shows that there will be a cleansing before admission to the tree of life and entrance through the gates of the city. Where will all of this happen if not in a third place?
I have a friend who is a missionary to pastors in these countries. He reports that the Chinese christians are in the millions and more and more coming every day. He says the same about Africa and the Middle East. He was in Bethlehem for a number of years ministering to Jews there. He and his staff were arrested in China but they were let go. God is at work for sure in these ‘hidden’ nations. He loves the Muslims and is at work now in their lives. I don’t fear a Muslim takeover anymore because I know God has a plan for them as well as for us. He really IS in control.
That, my friend, is CATHOLIC Theology. That somehow when a priest forgives a man's sins, that he is then absolved and God has to do what the priest says.
The protestant belief is that God is not obligated to do anything. The fact is that if someone professes to believe in Christ and then continues in sin, then that sin is evidence that they do not believe in Christ. God is not obligated to accept you or me or anyone into heaven. Those whom he chooses to allow in are the ones who will be allowed in.
I wonder how many people who are in hell thought the same thing?
There's going to be a lot of people in Hell who thought they were good enough to make it into heaven. I suspect that number is going to be higher than the number who erroneously believed that they had a saving faith in Christ.
You seem to be confused about what works really are.
You seem to be confused about what those works will accomplish.
I don’t think God is ever surprised.
Do you use this to justify sin?
Dying completely to the will of God should be constant.
Not just running around saying your "Born Again" and accepting sin as who we are.
Amen, hosepipe.
I've been following this conversation, and Marlowe never once said anything like the above underlined section. You added that on your own.
Incidentally, the Apostle Paul reports being accused of the same thing: 8 Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Rom 8:3
That puts Marlowe in some pretty lofty company, doesn't it? But it suggests that Marlowe's being misunderstood over exactly the same thing that Paul's adversaries misunderstood.
It doesn't take a whole lot of logic to realize the poverty of that statement.
If Christ died for a man and paid for every one of his sins and cleansed that man of his transgressions with His blood, and that man STILL burns in hell, just what does that say about the efficacy and strength of Christ's sacrifice?
It's a ludicrous argument. Christ's blood was sufficient for all the world, but efficient for only those who are His.
Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin." -- Psalms 51:1-2"Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
"Wash me thoroughly." Not conditionally. Not partially. Not temporally. "Thoroughly."
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
Shall I worry? Is my household clothed with the blood of Christ or not?
The Bible ends that confusion.
Works and "all our righteousnesses" are "as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6).
Amen.
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." -- Psalm 65:4
The Works in Christ Glorify God. When we follow the will of God there is going to be works of love. This is how you can tell if Christ is using you or not. We do not expect self gain for any of it! .
Suffering and trials is also another way that we know God is with us. If you have no suffering and trails then something is wrong because it is through these trials that we grow in Christ.
This is a message that the mega churches avoid because it does not sell
Christianity is not supposed to be easy,Dear Brother It is NOT easy to deny ourselves to the will of God,especially when it means a cross in our lives
What spirits?.. The nephlim or ANGELS.. fallen angels.. The reference is to before and during Noahs time(s)..
[.. 1Peter 4:6, the Gospel was preached "even to the dead". Again, where were these dead?..]
You quoted the verse WRONG,, "WAS preached to those that are NOW dead" is the proper rendering..
[.. Matthew 12:32, "...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this world or in the world to come." This passage alludes to another world in which some sins will be forgiven. What other world? Again it could not be either Heaven or hell. ..]
No it don't.. it says NOT forgiven.. because sin forgiveness is a NOW thing.. You've streached this verse wrongfully..
[.. Hebrews 12:23, "...and to the Church of the Firstborn who are enrolled in the heavens, and to GOD, THE JUDGE OF ALL AND TO THE SPIRITS OF THE JUST MADE PERFECT." ..]
A Non sequiter.. this does not relate.. The "church" does not forgive sin.. ever..
[.. We see from Revelation 21:27 that nothing imperfect will enter heaven, and in Hebrews 12:23, the spirits of the just are made perfect. Revelation 22:14 shows that there will be a cleansing before admission to the tree of life and entrance through the gates of the city. Where will all of this happen if not in a third place? ..]
Where and when will this happen?.. After being born again through sanctification(a process) after that.. and could be a purging of "things" in our minds and hearts during the conversion to a spiritual BODY.. But I don;t know neither do you or anybody else..
NOTE: purgatory was and is now pagan sillyness.. or worse.. and should be purged from christian contact.. Only ONE of many things that should be purged/flushed.. from apostate thought..
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.