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.
Some think anything is better than the Church.
Yeah, we call it "vernacular" nowadays, but English could be called "vulgar" as in "common" since it's the language of the world. Does that make KJV vulgar too? I believe it is. Always have. :)
Why even Luther and Calvin used Latin! That's because the other languages were not developed enough even for prose, let alone liturgical concepts.
You're absolutely right, Cronos. The language apartheid existed in the Church from the 5th century onward. By the 8th century not even the western bishops could understand Greek.
Seems to me perhaps that bible-only mentality opens the possibility not only of making up theology, but historical un-facts as well.
You get that impression too? Funny, they never deny it.
Cronos: The Apostolic Church, of which the Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc. etc), the Catholic (Latin, Maronite, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar etc. etc), the Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian) and the Assyrian are all a part of
Cronos, now you are going to confuse them even more.
Thank you!
The idea that God created two sets of humans, one elect and the other reprobate doesn't go well with the idea that God created man in His image and likeness.
The only arguable Biblical ascensions were of Enoch, Elijah, and of course Christ. Moses could not possibly have ascended because of scripture:
Deut 34:5-6 : 5 And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. 6 He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
We are not told of Mary's death, but there is ZERO scriptural evidence of her ascension (or Elisha's, to my knowledge) under any interpretation. Concerning Mary, even the Church has nothing to work with. Apparently, it took around 1,700 years for the RCC to decide it had always believed this when Pope Pius XII made it official in 1950. I'm not positive, but as dogma, I don't think the Orthodox even buy it to this day.
[continuing:] The heresy is that this is extended to everyone who will go to heaven and that those to whom it is not extended will go to hell.
I'm not sure what "this" refers to. If you are referring to "pure" then none of those you listed was actually pure with regard to sin because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). Paul said that, and elsewhere makes the only exception for Christ (2 Cor. 5:21).
If, OTOH, you are referring to those who accomplish God's purposes, then it still doesn't work because every living being accomplishes God's purposes, by His design. Some of those go to Heaven and some do not.
Predestination says that man’s efforts are not of effect and not worth spit.
Man's efforts for what? Salvation? And in the same breath you are going to tell me that you do not believe in a works-based salvation? I'm not accusing you of full Pelagianism, but come on :), you have to admit to your belief that your eternal destiny is fully dependent on your free will decisions, and your performance thereof. Your human performance either exceeds the bar or it does not. Heaven or hell is in the balance. If that is what is true for you, then I totally hope you make it. I really will be pulling for you to step up when it really counts (or however that is measured, I don't know). You get the sentiment, I wish you the best. :)
Cronos: Seems more like the god of Moab
For sure.
Cronos: The "Masonic Order" dates from the 15th century merchant guilds and all of their "rites" and "beliefs" are essentially from the 18th and 19th centuries...
Cronos, you mean to tell me that we are goinf to let historical facts in the way of free-lance un-fact production?
Thanks for the reminder of the Westminster Confession. I understand the WHAT of it; I simply disagree with much of it.
If I may, I’d like to start out with a definition of predestination. If you have objection to this, we can revisit it.
“God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation.”
You have been most generous in your Scriptural support of this position. There are some Scriptural arguments, however.
I believe that this is an important issue and does matter for two reasons. It may be demotivating for us to reach the lost if we believe everything is predetermined. If salvation is already decided there is no real point in being proactive in the faith or urgency in preaching the Gospel. If your neighbor is unsaved, then Reformed Theology tells you that they will come to know Jesus or spend eternity in hell whether you tell them about God’s plan for salvation or not.
Also, predestinarians believe if you don’t believe in predestination it is because the Holy Spirit has chosen not to reveal the truth of predestination to you. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of predestination to real believers so you must not be a real believer if you believe in free will.
Again, if you object to either statement, we can revisit them.
Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul and is closely linked with the concept of reward and punishment, based on the Torah itself:
I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse: therefore choose life - Deuteronomy 30:19
It is further understood that in order for Man to have true free choice, he must not only have inner free will, but also an environment in which a choice between obedience and disobedience exists. God thus created the world such that both good and evil can operate freely.
Ignatius of Antioch- Died between 98 and 110 AD: If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.
Irenaeus- (ca. 130-202): About 180 AD Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies Book IV, against ideas that would later become aspects of Calvinist and Reformed Theology in its denial of the free will as you can see in the following summaries:
Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.
Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God’s Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious.
Justin Martyr- c. 100/114AD – c. 162/168 AD:
Man acts by his own free will and not by fate.
We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.
But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so.
Clement of Alexandria (190 AD)
A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace.
Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.
Augustine (354-430 AD):
God loves each of us as if there were only one of us.
If there be not free will grace in God, how can He save the world? And if there be not free will in man, how can the world by God be judged?
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20
“Without excuse” implies choice and consequence. If God created certain men to be condemned to hell then they had no choice and they do have an excuse. The excuse is: God created me that way and I had no choice to either accept or reject God.
Without free will there is no responsibility. If you accept predestination then you rule out responsibility.
Throughout the Bible God made conditions for individuals and groups, which they had free will to obey or reject.
“The LORD will establish you as his holy people, as he promised you on oath, if you keep the commands of the LORD your God and walk in his ways.” Deuteronomy 28:9 NIV
It is clear that people have two choices. Today we have the same two basic choices:
“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24:15
“Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waiver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him, but if Baal is god, follow him.” 1 King 18:21
Repentance: Repentance involves a conscious change on our part. It must be sincere, therefore it must also be made freely by our own choice.
Therefore, thus says the LORD, “If you return, then I will restore you— Jeremiah 15:19
Thus says the Lord GOD, “Repent and turn away from your idols, and turn your faces away from all your abominations. Ezekiel 14:6
Say to them, “’As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!” Ezekiel 33:11
But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Luke 13:3
…if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9
TEMPTATION VS TESTING
“When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.” James 1:13-14
If one cannot fail a test because God fixed the outcome, then it is no longer a test, but a pointless exercise. A test has a purpose and failure is always an option, otherwise it is not a test.
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked… Psalms 5:11
Test me, O LORD, and try me, examine my heart and my mind… Psalms 26:2
And we are told the Israelites were in the desert for 40 years not only as punishment but they were also being tested.
Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. Deuteronomy 8:2
According to Calvinism God already predestined the outcome, so why test them? God was testing them, allowing them to keep His commands or not, something that could not be done without free will.
THE GREAT COMMISSION
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 NIV
Calvinists believe that the purpose of proclaiming the Gospel is not to save anyone, but merely to be obedient for the sake of the command. We do not actually accomplish anything as everyone has already been assigned an eternal place in either heaven or hell. That is not what the Bible says:
I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. Acts 26:18
Reformed Theology mixed with the Great Commission is like having a doctor operate on a dead person. It may be obedient, but it’s also a complete waste of time. Paul tells us differently:
Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 1 Corinthians 9:16-17
Calvinists will tell you if you are compelled to do something then it isn’t voluntary. However Paul is saying he preaches the gospel voluntarily even though he is compelled. Being compelled doesn’t mean by force and without a choice. Sometimes we are compelled by conviction or love.
He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. John 1:7
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. Titus 2:11
For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. Romans 11:32
[God] who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4
[Jesus] …gave himself as a ransom for all men 1 Timothy 2:6
…we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. 1 Timothy 4:10
If God is the Saviour of all men, if God loves all men, if Jesus gave Himself as a ransom for all men, if He wants none to perish, then I still don’t understand the attraction of the philosophy that He created great numbers of humanity in order to condemn them to everlasting hellfire. He arbitrary sends some to heaven without any merit of their own. I’m sorry, I still don’t get it.
Most of this came from: http://www.freewill-predestination.com/freewill.html
"Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Once you deny this, then everything is up for grabs.
Let us not forget that the idea of celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, as well.
There are married Latin priests, just not that many of them.
This is what happens when threads exceed 1000 posts ... they totally deteriorate.
Well, what’s the point of espousing an elitism philosophy if you don’t think that you’re one of the elite?
Liberals believe themselves to be an elite because they are, well, an elite. They also don’t believe that they have done anything of merit. They simply are better than the rest of us because of innate knowledge.
hosepipe: Not so.. Absolutely not so.. The churchs for the almost 300 years were local area controlled.. They fellowshipped somewhat accross areas but the control was local.. even if they agreed on "things"..
The churches are still a communion of bishops and laity. The bishops are equal but some of them have greater jurisdictional responsibility. As the Church grew, so did the levels of that responsibility. That had nothing to do with the onenness of the Church. Even St. Ignatius, as early as 105 AD, speaks of only one true Church and he calls it catholic.
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.