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.
That’s a good way of putting it.
but I don’t really have the answer. I know that when I neglect my prayer life...
thanks for your post...
Ha!
It’s much funnier now.
thanks..
One of my children, with his free will chose to nearly destroy his life with drugs. Would I have put him in restraints to stop him? YES.
I have faith God can and does preserve His word throughout many languages and translations.
So am I.
:>)
LOLOLOL!
Your response is to say you don't agree with those Scriptures. It's difficult to discuss the topic when we each use different measurements for the evidence.
Where do you disagree with the Scripture I offered?
Fascinating insights, dearest 'pipe! You seem to be pointing to the "gnostic types." Their theory generally propounds: The knowledge of all truth is possible for individual human beings, provided such individuals are willing to sign up for the course in [Hermetic] "enlightenment," given by the eminent Professor So-and-so with his colleagues, all of which as if emanating from a central source that has not yet been accounted for let alone identified.
Usually such cons are presented in the form of bona-fide public education, and taxpayer money usually pays for them.
These days such considerations seem to be rarely entertained or engaged by our (supposedly) highly well-educated, intelligent public. At least not by the ones who are presently "bloviating" on the public airwaves, etc. -- on talk radio, network and cable TV, the MSM of print journalism, the blogosphere; and all together, in all their multifarious, mutual permutations. [And these days, AFAIC, that would definitely include Bill O'Reilly.]
And that's just the long way of saying: I completely agree with you, dearest brother in Christ!
Thank you. So the rest of your post is just another opinion.
Is Satan a created being? At any point in time could God kill Satan? Does God know the evil which Satan tempts men towards and yet He permits the temptation anyway, knowing all the while exactly what will happen when to whom and why?
Can Satan thwart God's will?
Exactly.
Next to justification by Christ's sacrifice alone, I don't think there's any doctrine in Scripture as important and necessary to understand than the Trinity. Without it we are not Christians. So if someone chose to stress that point, I don't think it's so egregious. Nothing in the rest of 1 John 5 contradicts the verses. In fact, it supports them.
Let's ask forthedeclaration. What do you think about 1 John 5:7-8, ftd?
Humans are the descendents of Satan???
LOL. That is a lie, Mark. You've lied about Calvinism for days now, so I'm not surprised the lies keep getting bigger and bigger.
God has created a bunch of people and is going to roast them, undeservedly, forever.
Undeservedly? The only people in hell are those who do not have faith in Jesus Christ. Do you disagree with that?
It makes me wonder what kind of mind, what kind of psychosis could come up with that.
I realize the counter-Reformation has to label all dissidents as enemies of Rome and in need of extermination, but your langauge is over the top...again.
"Since he was cursed who rebuilt Jericho, much more the man who labours to restore Popery among us. In our fathers' days the gigantic walls of Popery fell by the power of their faith, the perseverance of their efforts, and the blast of their gospel trumpets; and now there are some who would rebuild that accursed system upon its old foundations. O Lord, be please to thwart their unrighteous endeavours, and pull down every stone which they build. It should be a serious business with us to be thoroughly purged of every error which may have a tendency to foster the spirit of Popery, and when we have made a clean sweep at home we should seek in every way to oppose its all too rapid spread abroad in the church and in the world. This last can be done in secret by fervent prayer, and in public by decided testimony. We must warn with judicious boldness those who are inclined towards the errors of Rome; we must instruct the young in gospel truth, and tell them of the black doings of Popery in the olden times. We must aid in spreading the light more thoroughly through the land, for priests, like owls, hate daylight. Are we doing all we can for Jesus and the gospel? If not, our negligence plays into the hands of priestcraft. What are we doing to spread the Bible, which is the Pope's bane and poison? Are we casting abroad good, sound gospel writings? Luther once said, 'The devil hates goose quills,' and doubtless, he has good reason, for ready writers, by the Holy Spirit's blessing, have done his kingdom much damage. If the thousands who will read this short word this night will do all they can to hinder the rebuilding of his accursed Jericho, the Lord's glory shall speed among the sons of men. Reader, what can you do? What will you do?" -- From "Evening By Evening" by Charles Spurgeon
10/4 rubber ducky..
I can see you haven't studied this subject much and are relying on strange information that you've perhaps heard someplace.
I'd recommend just a quick glance at an encyclopedia or short bio of Calvin. Someone like you shouldn't want to look uneducated to others.
Respectfully, my response was I disagree with the theology that says God created man without free will, TULIP and so on.
That is one of the great theological questions of all time.
There are folks that believe that Satan serves God’s will and that all Hell is, is the last resort to get a person’s attention.
Satan is God’s creation. That’s Biblical, and no gainsaying, so there it is. Can God destroy Satan. I believe so, yes. So therefore what is Satan’s use? To drive people to be the best they can be? Or to have them prove to themselves that they have given up and failed?
What is the opinion of the elect?
Of course He does: He is Father to all mankind. God speaks to all men, presumably in the language they understand.
And I also absolutely agree that the knowledge of the Greek language is not a necessary prerequisite for understanding Scripture.
But the Greek language imbeds certain philosophical ideas that survive to our own day that do not easily lend themselves to modern translation. There is a Christian tradition, the elaboration of Christian philosophy, that perhaps originally came from/through Saint Justin Martyr, who initially viewed Christian theology through the lens of classical Greek philosophy. But far more than that, Justin evidently "fell" for Christianity in the same way Augustine would "fall": as not only the perfection of the rational human mind in Our Lord Jesus Christ; but more, the perfection of the individual human life, the human soul, in the present and its beyond in eternity, in and through Him.
So philosophy gives a narrow view of course; but Justin is complemented by Saint Paul's experience and testimony, arising in part from his Hebraic roots, perhaps profoundly affected by the experience of having been blown out of his saddle, left stunned, dumb, and blind for days: thus the Roman Jew Saul of Tarsus' experience of the Rauch of God, on the road to Damascus.
In these two men, Athens and Jerusalem met and, arguably, have never since parted.... IMHO FWIW (figuratively speaking of course)
Christ came to fulfill the Law of the Prophets, then to institute a new dispensation of divine law that relied on their insights, God's direct communication through Moses; yet God resolved the ten several into two final principles, both of which have "love" as the active verb.
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Prophets. By the same token -- divine Justice -- I do not see why he did not also fulfill the great Greek Philosphers....
God is Love. God is Truth. God is Justice.
Good night, dear sister in Christ! May His blessings be ever with you and all of yours.
Whoa.
The doctrine of the predetermined is that the only people going to hell are the predestined to hell and the only people going to heaven are the predestined to heaven.
It doesn’t matter if I believe in Jesus or Heaven or Hell. If I’m on the list, then off I go. That is Calvinism. Calvinism says that no matter what I do or don’t do, my life and afterlife are determined. Where is the lie?
And that I utterly reject.
1 John 5:7 and a small portion of 8 are textual additions by a scribe. They were discovered and usually included by footnote or italicized to show it was not in the earliest manuscripts, similar to Mark 16:9-20. The evidence of the Holy Spirit’s safekeeping God’s word is the just this kind of comparing scripture to the earliest fragments and winnowing out the additions. The same can’t be said of man’s traditions or liturgy which change over time.
Shouldn’t?
Well, I’ve made an ass of myself yesterday, so my modesty is somewhat compromised.
The theology of Calvin, is based upon the total depravity of man, is it not? If it is, then who is the father of depravity? Satan or God?
If the sins of the father are visited upon the sons, then doesn’t it go back to the father? All the way back? The Father of Lies?
Evil either comes from God or from Satan. Right?
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.