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.
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
You're a real hard head.. :-) I like that..
More specifically, because I love God more than words can tell, I believe Him and trust Him above all else – including my own sensory perceptions (the physical evidence) and my own reasoning much less the reasoning of others.
Man’s vision and mind are limited – and are also limited to his place in time. He is “in” the creation - both spiritual and physical (Col 1) - and cannot remove himself from it in order to see “all that there is” at once, objectively. He can never obtain objective truth by his own devices.
This is a frequent point raised in the science debates – because the atheists believe that “all that there is” is that which they can observe by telescope or microscope. They for instance, often point to the randomness they observe in nature as evidence that there was no design and therefore no Designer.
But the theologians know – as do the philosophers – and the mathematicians confirm that one cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn’t know what the system “is.” And science does not know and cannot know the full extent of the physical system – much less the non-physical.
The same applies to all observations made by mortals. We see through a glass darkly.
God alone knows objective Truth. He alone reveals it. That manuscripts containing His words have been altered, misinterpreted, lost or burned is no problem at all for Him. He has the “original” as you call it. Nothing is lost to Him. And He reveals Truth – or withholds it – according to His will, not ours.
For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. – Isaiah 55:8-11
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:12-13
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25
As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. - Mark 5:36
Praise God!!!
Beautifully, graciously said, my dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you for sharing all of your insights, dear sister in Christ!
All glory and praise be to God -- "the Lord of Life, with His creatures"!
Thank you so very much for sharing all of your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
It should not be disturbing that terms such as “Logos” find their roots in Greek philosophy, e.g. that Plato was the first to personify the term “logos.”
Nor should it be disturbing when the archeologists report of like commandments found in pagan cultures predating the Torah and the Ten Commandments.
Nor should it be troubling when the physical evidence of an event seems to contradict the spiritual account in Scripture.
Neither should a Christian be disturbed to discover that holy manuscripts have been mishandled from time-to-time or that their leaders have made mistakes along the way.
We believe that Jesus Christ is God enfleshed, born of a virgin, died on a cross for our sins, resurrected and sits at the right hand of God the Father in heaven and will come again. We believe that while He was enfleshed, He walked on water, raised the dead, healed the sick and so on. We believe everything that was made was made by Him and for Him.
We believe all of this – why should we be disturbed by anything or any one?
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. – Psalms 23:4
My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. – John 10:29
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Tim 1:12
[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. – Hebrews 13:5
“And the fact that The Church survived 2000 years inspite of such “stewards”, shows that God is with The Church.”
The Masonic Order traces it foundation back even farther than that and in spite of all the occult influences it still survived with its liturgy. What does longevity prove? It could prove that the hierarchy has so much invested in its position that it just continues. the Preacher says there is a time for everything and perhaps “The Church’s” time is well past and it hasn’t figured it out.
Textual criticism, which seeks to remove errors from biblical manuscripts is a method which is neither fail-safe nor immune to human prejudice, and thus it also fails. It is based as much on probabilities as on personal taste. It is a tool but not a prefect tool. And as such it does not give perfect results.
FTD wrote: Gee, aren't you Greek Orthodox guys the ones who use the Koine Greek?
What makes him think that the writer of 1 John (written between 90 and 120 AD) knew Koine Greek well?
Or, more likely, that the scribe who copied a copy of what we now call 1 John was an expert in Greek grammar; or that he was even Greek?
It is just as likely that some other scribe, who did know Koine Greek well, decided the previous scribe made a mistake and simply added the verse as a "correction," which is probably one of the most common errors found.
Surely, you will recognize that even among the educated in America, including our top executives, correct English grammar is not always their strong characteristic. Why should it be when it comes to an ancient scribe of a persecuted faith?
The rules of internal and external evidence are clear and plentiful. But it's not hard science.
The link FTD provides also mentions the grammar comment by one of the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, because the grammar is poor; that only proves that the verse was not there!
The same source lists an anonymous anti-Arian work, Varimadum (380 AD), which includes the additional verse. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if such verse was available to those who spearheaded their work against heretics, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, etc. they would have gladly used it!
Historical evidence shows that the verse were not known to those who needed them the most, and who knew their scriptures as well as Koine Greek, the church fathers who fought against christological heresies.
Once the errors crept into the manuscript copies, they multiplied. All the additions and deletions, smoothing of the text, adding commas where one "felt" they should be, represent profane changes of non-inspired individuals, and therefore corruption of the scripture. For, that which is perfect is complete and cannot be changed without introducing corruption.
That's why only the Church could have interpreted various scrolls as inspired and included them in the NT; it was only the Church that could see through all the corurption of various texual samples and give us the perfect Christian canon. Yet Protestants deny the authority of the Church to interpret scripture!
It really helps to familiarize oneself with the work of textual criticism to be able to understand that what we call the inerrant Bible never existed.
FK, lobotomizing was never good. It was 'curative' in a very undesirable way. If God changes our heart without our participation or desire, it is forced. It is no different than brainwashing.
I mean, were our brains "clean" before we came to Christ? NO, of course not, they were filthy and full of sin. God "washed" them and then we believed
God healed us because we asked Him. We don't go around snatching McDonald's burgers our of fat people's hands just because obesity is unhealthy, do we? Do we arrest smokers because their habits are disgusting? Or do we help them change their ways? God lets us know He is there, but it's up to us to come to Him and ask for help. We all did, and do. No one was forced, arrested or lobotomized.
I guess what I’m missing is the selection mechanism - how it’s done and why God does it.
I still cannot resolve it against the passages of inclusivity for all men.
Not true.. "some/a church" has the authority to interpret scripture wrongly if they must.. they just cannot interpret it for everybody.. Thats WHY the Holy Spirit is needed.. but IF "that" church is NOT lead by the Holy Spirit, well then.. ERROR could and most likely will happen.. Churchs have difficultly admitted gross error.. for it tends to makes their forefathers look like idiots.. when they were not idiots at all they just never knew or in some caes maybe cared to know the Holy Spirit..
Happens a lot in places where the organization is called "THE church" instead of "A church".. There... continuous hierarchy trumps truth.. That church then becomes a hive with drones instead of a flock with sheep.. Being drones they could care less whether they are insects or sheep.. Visit a church and you tell after awhile wether they are a HIVE or a flock.. At least a sheep can..
Maybe God made bees, ants, termites and wasps as a metaphorical object lesson to sheep.. probably did..
My problem is with the notion that we need to purchase our salvation. The cost was covered at the cross and our standing before God is established at (spiritual) birth. Are we to be persuaded that we should work to obtain something that we already have or to keep that which we cannot lose?
Salvation is an investment..
I believe that Christ is investing.
Seven
Thank you for your post.
Since you changed from the pearl to the treasure, I assume that you think that they have the same meaning. I do not. It is difficult for me to argue this point because I too, think that Christ is a valuable treasure and I don’t deny the merit of your point of view.
Here is my point of view, discern if you think there is merit. The fact that the treasure comes out of the earth and the pearl comes out of the sea suggests that the treasure is Israel and the pearl is the church. The order is also significant. (treasure, then pearl) I am sure that you have heard many of the arguments on this subject so I won’t take time to go into more details now. I have many questions, but this interpretation addresses the question of who will pay. The field is the world and Christ bought it. He paid it all.
Seven
Faith is the currency of God.. you purchase salvation with faith.. Faith in the blood and ministry of Jesus the Christ.. He is the gold that backs up the faith(currency) that runs his(Gods) economy.. If you have faith in any other you are passing counterfeit faith, on purpose OR by mistake.. And will be apprehended..
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.What is the gift here?
Don't lose sight of what the metaphors(parables) are.. Word images are worth a thousand words or more.. I agree with the above statement.. Metaphors transcend language culture and even dialect.. thats what they are for.. Metaphors speak of something other than what the words say.. You are on the right track.. I say go for it.. The image may not be the same for everybody.. Thats the genius of them..
A parable when you are 20 years old may be a certain image but when you are fifty the image then revisted may be more "robust".. filled in or even different.. Little wonder Jesus spoke mostly in metaphorical persona.. i.e. timeless words..
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.