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.
Exactly.
Indeed a leaking umbrella tattered all full of holes.. This umbrella is a perceived one.. not even existing until @300 a.d. or so, and then not universally... One solid organization existing with one top down hierarchy(on this planet) for 2000 years is a lie.. and is probably heresy.. Where do lies come from?..
You missed part of the dialog.. However you are correct..
As I thought I said..
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." -- John 17:9-10"I pray for them: I pray not pray for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Here John confirms that the eternal God of all creation loves you, Irish, and you, Mark, and me with an extraordinary, individual, personal, preordained love that God declared from before the foundation of the world -- before we could do anything good or evil to "earn" our redemption by Jesus Christ...
"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
Oops. That’s what I get for spending some time in the real world. 8~)
Missed your point Doc..
Amen. Although the church does exist on earth because Christ is the head of it. It's just that it's not in Rome, nor is it all contained within any one church. Some churches have more truth than others; some none at all. But God's children are scattered far and wide. One day they will all be of one mind. Until then, we read the Scriptures and listen and learn in gratitude.
Which of us reformed Christians weren't at first put off and dismissive of the Biblical understanding that God has elected some from before the foundation of the world?
Yes indeed, certainly not me. But then the idea of God's sovereignty started to keep repeating itself in my studies. My mentor, without EVER mentioning "Reformed theology" or Calvin or Luther, etc. kept saying to me "It's all about Jesus, not you". He said it so many times that I must have given him several looks along the lines of "yeah, I get it, thanks" :). But I DIDN'T REALLY get it until later, so he was right all along to keep pushing it. Then one day I heard of this "Reformed theology" thing and I said "EUREKA!, that fills in all the holes". And the rest .... :)
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.
Yes, and it's amazing how escapable inescapable logic can be sometimes. :)
AMEN, brother! :)
Allow me to fix this for you,Dear Sister
The logic LOVE of who God says He is is overwhelming "not forced on us". 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 intendsallows to occur, one way or the other.
The fact that God may use something that comes from someone who chooses Evil and turns it into something good DOES NOT MEAN GOD PLANNED THE EVIL.
God's logic is NOT man's logic. Why must you keep trying to reduce God's logic to fit the logic of man?
GOD ALWAYS WINS OVER EVIL! THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE CREATED EVIL!
Denying free will is evil, but God will still allow the brainwashed people who believe this to exist and use it for the purpose of good .
Good Night!
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
“The logic LOVE of who God says He is is overwhelming “not forced on us”.”
You need to reread Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. When someone is truly in love with another he/she “forces him/herself on the object of love so as to exclude all competitors and then “forces” themselves daily by means of tokens of their love insure there are no other rivals be it human or hobby.
“DOES NOT MEAN GOD PLANNED THE EVIL.”
Again, using Paul as an example, do you suppose the “thorn” that Paul writes about was not given by God to tame Paul’s superiority complex? Or sickness in the the man Jesus healed so that God’s glory might be revealed do you not think that god planned that? We may not consider them evil from our vantage point but to Paul and the sick man those conditions were considered evil.
You just said you have the control to deny God and be lost at any moment
It's our nature, FK. If we give in to our nature, we reject God. It all comes down to that. As long as, and whenever we serve our ego, we reject God.
According to your belief a murderer commits murder because God wants him to. If that is so, then the Reformed God is both Good and Evil, because murder is evil by God's own laws.
It is easy to succumb to the deceptive sense of security in the Reformed view, since a secure shelter is what we all seek.
It is also comforting to know that no matter what you do in life, God will forgive you, because you have been saved before you even existed. The burden is off of your back. Very enticing.
It is also prideful to belong to an exclusive club, the "select club" of those the King of Kings personally favors. Very flattering.
All this points to a human hand in this religion,tailored to man's own (fallen) natural desires: it provides secure shelter; it absolves one of all wrongdoing; it flatters one into believing they are favorites of an otherwise impartial God!
As to possession, do you deny that you are OWNED by God?
If we die unto ourselves and give our life and will to God. We were not "captured" and turned into believers.
I, for one, want God to be in control of my will ALL THE TIME. :)
I thought God is in control all the time. Are you saying He isn't in cotnrol of your will? But I know that the reformed will say that God is in in control of everythinbg (including your will), therefore your sentence "For one, I want [sic] God to be in control of my [sic] will all the time" is a double oxymoron" because it runs contrary to your reformed belief that God is in control of everything all the time, and that it's God who wants and not you, since He already controls your will.
Sure there is surrender, and it is real. Death and the old nature (ME) lose.
in the reformed way of thinking there can be no surrender because you have no free will. You have been pre-programmed to "surrender" and the tape is just playing itself out. None of this is your doing. You are a puppet and a puppet does nothing without a puppet master pulling the stings.
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. – I Corinthians 1:19-25
Even more so I cannot be silent when Christ has worked a far greater miracle in me.
And if the people demand proofs of the master, we the servants should expect the same treatment.
Indeed, I perceive God working everything together according to His own will. And not every person He gifted or moved was a believer, either a Christ or a Jew. Nebuchadnezzar served a purpose, as did Cyrus and so on.
Likewise it seems to me that Plato was gifted and his part was to encourage people to look and see, plowing the field of the civilized world for when Christ would be revealed.
Praise God!!!
Praise God!!!
Funny...but somewhat true.
When you look at the Bible as a whole and consider why God created man, why God is angered by us, why Jesus came to earth to be a sacrifice for our sins, and why God delays in destroying the world and creating a new one it is clear God is giving every person every chance possible to repent and accept Him.
The Reformed notion of the elect denies that all mankind is created in God's image and likness because God desires all human beings to be the image of God and attain the likeness of God.
That applies to every human being. As far as I know, there was no special Genesis for the "reprobate."
Yes, it can be no coincidence at all. And that includes all the wars among even ourselves since the Reformation. Yet, even given all those troubles, we remain the most blessed. I had never thought about this before, thanks for pointing it out. :)
To know is different from willing it to be a person’s destiny. Did God say “let’s make Judas suffer eternal damnation, damned from before he was born, from before time eternal” or did He say “I KNOW Judas will betray ME”
That was a very good post all the way through.
The story you repeated was very humorous and points to a valid question:
How does one choose to believe he has no choice?
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.