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.
I believe you will find that our friend Kosta does not believe that God kills people physically.
God may kill people AND condemn them to hell,
I think it is a pretty safe bet that he has done both.
Whatever the good kosta believes is his own.
It does not, however, address the differences from God physically killing someone and in condemning them to hell.
Did God send everyone that he has ever allowed to be killed by any of His contrivances (kings, plagues, floods, etc.) to hell? There is no Biblical inferrence that this is the case.
Supposing God decides that the next crop of bin Laden recruits needs to dive bomb our metropolitan area for His reasons and I happen to perish. Does that mean that I am condemned to hell along with the rest of the downtown? Following this logic, does this mean that everyone who perished in the various 9/11 attacks were condemned by God to the everlasting fires of hell?
Somehow I don't think that what I am writing and what you are reading are the same things.
Have a nice day.
Somone who pesters people incessently?
In the Bible.
It can’t be the scriptures since they are filled with all sorts of additions of men
There is a chance that any verse was added at some time other than by the original author. We have no way of knowing. That is just a reminder that what we believe is not necessarily true. But some people can live in delusions and be perfectly at home.
You have no proof that any verse in the Bible was written by any author claimed, just as you cannot prove that the Holy Spirit does anything just because you believe He does.
Now, if we are going to pretend that a verse is really a true verse (and there is a certain probability attached to that pretense) then we can speak of it as if it were true (and there is a certain probability that it is).
When we do, we see that the verses in question express a universal, but not particular truth, sufficiently general to allow all sorts of interpretations as to what is good or evil. In other words it can mean anything your heart desires.
So, while it expresses the universal truth, in general rather than particular, it by no means assures us that what we know or what we define as "good" is really good. The verse is true provided what we consider good is truly good.
Last time I checked, men have been mistaken.
So you don’t know... What is a demon is?...
P-M; you are the one in this conversation that keeps appearing to equate God physically killing a person or allowing that person to perish with sending them to hell forever.
Your friend Kosta doesn't believe Love kills. God is not the author of death. Death is the consequence of sin, and God is not the author of sin, some sects' bizarre beliefs notwithstanding. God is Life. The opposite of God is death. Life begets life. Death begets death.
In the words of Prof. Alexander Kalomiros ("River of Fire") Death was not inflicted upon us by God.l3 We fell into it by our revolt. God is Life and Life is God. We revolted against God, we closed our gates to His life-giving grace.l4 "For as much as he departed from life," wrote Saint Basil, "by so much did he draw nearer to death. For God is Life, deprivation of life is death."l5 "God did not create death," continues Saint Basil, "but we brought it upon ourselves." "Not at all, however, did He hinder the dissolution… so that He would not make the infirmity immortal in us."l6 As Saint Irenaeus puts it: "Separation from God is death, separation from light is darkness… and it is not the light which brings upon them the punishment of blindness."l7 "Death," says Saint Maximus the Confessor, "is principally the separation from God, from which followed necessarily the death of the body. Life is principally He who said, ‘I am the Life.’"18
_____________________________________________
l3 "For God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living, for he created all things that they might have their being, and the generations of the world were healthful, and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of Hades upon the earth." Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-14. "For God created man to be immortal and made him to be in an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the world." Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24.
14 "And so he who was made in the likeness of God, since the more powerful spirit [the Holy Spirit] is separated from him, becomes mortal." Tatian Address to the Greeks 7.
15 "For as much as he departed from life, just so much did he draw nearer to death. For God is life; deprivation of life is death. So Adam was the author of death to himself through his departure from God, in accordance with the scripture which says ‘For behold, they that remove themselves from Thee shall perish.’" Psalm 72:27.
16 "Thus God did not create death, but we brought it upon ourselves out of an evil disposition. Nevertheless, He did not hinder the dissolution on account of the aforementioned causes, so that He would not make the infirmity immortal in us." St. Basil the Great (PG 31. 345).
17 "But as many as depart from God by their own choice, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness.... It is not, however, that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of darkness." St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5. 27:2. "But others shun the light and separate themselves from God...." Ibid., 5. 28:1.
18 Philokalia, vol. 2, p. 27 (Greek edition), St. Maximus the Confessor.
I already gave you the answer. Which part don’t you understand?
Show me once where I did that. Kosta said that God never kills anyone. I provided some examples of where God did that. I did not say that any or all of those people who were killed by God were sent to hell. They were killed by God. We are not spared death simply because we are nice people, nor are was spared death because we have been saved.
God appoints the day and the hour of our death.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27 KJV)
So Mark, what do you think you can read into this post that isn't there?
You responded: Sounds like a mighty petulant spirit. That doesn't sound like a comforter, but a high-school cheerleader. Somewhat flighty, and almost girlish.
Would you prefer that "love" is forced upon you??? God desires a loving relationship with us. What sort of "groom" do you take God to be? Sounds like your idea is the "shotgun" wedding.
And smiles will be issued to all present!
Sorry, our ideas of God are quite different.
You wrote: So we decide when the Spirit of God is active in us? Where's the Scripture for that?
We don't decide without God's graces when He will be active. However, any time it says that God is our helper, or that we can grieve the Holy Spirit, or that God is passionate for man, or God is Love are good indications that there is some sort of relationship between God and man. A cooperative one. I'm sure there are other instances where God's effect in us is noted because of man's response. However, it is clear to me that man CAN obey God's commandments as a result of man's response to God's graces.
If God has determined that we are among His children, then I would assume the Spirit works even harder in us when we are weak and faced with temptations. That's what He promised.
Of course God would "work harder". But it doesn't follow that man becomes a puppet once he declares himself as a child of God. The fact that men HAVE left God's family is indication that God allows us the final choice. You would have God responsible for man falling away, otherwise.
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." -- 1 Corinthians 10:13
What does the verse before that one say???
Regards
Your mother in law is a demon?... pullllese...
Do you patronize her too?...
What is a demon?...
***Why are you reaching into the OT when the NT is full of instances that tell us that God “gives life to the dead”***
Because the old testament is part of the Bible, also.
*** It was man who ushered death into the world, not God.***
It was God who planted the tree, it was God who told Adam not to eat of it, It was God who decided the punishment for disobedience, It was God who determined that man should die. It was all God. It was man who disobeyed, but God set the ground work. If Adam had not been told about the tree, if God had not planted the tree, then there would have been no punishment, and no need for a savior. But God had a plan, from the beginning.
You're a Catholic, so you're supposed to believe in original sin, right? If so, is original sin enough to condemn by itself? If it is, then no child is "innocent" in the context of this discussion. If it is not, then your baptism ritual is a waste of time.
I'm not sure how the millstone reference applies here. Those verses condemn one who cause a child believer to sin. How does that fit in here?
And as for the TULIP, the only thing I can think of is your disputing total depravity. As I said, is original sin enough to condemn or not?
To: xzins; kosta50; blue-duncan; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe
You left out the flood. But then kosta doesn’t believe there was a flood.
You left out Sodom and Gomorrah. But then I trust that kosta doesn’t believe in Sodom and Gomorrah.
You left out the murmering Israelites that God killed off. But then I trust that kosta doesn’t believe in the Exodus.
Frankly I would have to assume that wherever the Bible speaks of God killing men that kosta assumes that the Bible is in error and that his own pre-conceived theology (which includes his belief that God doesn’t kill) is more reliable than scripture.
I guess you can’t argue with that kind of reasoning.
5,436 posted on 09/05/2007 8:14:38 AM CDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
which preceded:
To: kosta50; blue-duncan; Alamo-Girl; P-Marlowe
God does kill.
Remember the rich man who wanted to build bigger and better barns? God said, “This night is thy soul required of thee.”
Remember Jesus’ friend, Lazarus, whom Jesus refused to heal so that Lazarus could die and then be resurrected so as to display God’s purposes?
Remember Herod who gave a speech but did not honor God, so he was consumed with worms and died?
Remember Ananias & Sophira who lied to the Holy Spirit and were directly killed by God and fear came over the church?
Remember the Corinthians whom Paul says received communion in an unworthy manner and many became sick and died?
Need we speak of the martyrs, who cry to the Lord, but are told to rest until the full number of their brethren slain for the gospel are killed?
Since God has absolutely perfect foreknowledge, and since God is the originating cause of earth, the act of creation of the earth does mean that God created despite knowing that death and tragedy would be one of the by-products.
5,434 posted on 09/05/2007 6:20:01 AM CDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
and so on.
As I read back into the posts, I made the assumption that you supported the idea that God’s physical killing equated God’s spiritual condemnation to hell. If I am incorrect, please accept my apologies.
I sure can't think of anything, and AMEN, Dr. E. Thanks for the wonderful scripture.
The unfortunate thing about depending on internal feelings is that there is no external metric to ensure that the internal feeling is actually sound.
If the reliance is on the “indwelling Spirit” and the “indwelling Spirit” tells one to rob a liquor store, then what is the objective difference between a religious mystic and a common armed robber?
Umm, the baptism of water and the Holy Spirit is supposed to be the way that we address original sin.
No. God’s taking life doesn’t mean the persons are condemned to hell.
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.