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.
Thanks for your post. If you’d care to answer the ‘where hell is’ part, I’d be interested too.
I don’t think Heaven is a big house. I think Jesus describing the afterlife to us is akin to us describing life to a fetus.
Luke 16:19-31, “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”
Lazarus was in Paradise, the place of the righteous dead until Christ’s resurrection. This was the place that the thief went and Christ went and preached and then emptied it in the resurrection and ascension.
Eph. 4:8-10, “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)” quoting Ps. 68:18, “Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them”. Rev. 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.”
Paul says that there is no more waiting for the believer in Paradise but to be dead is to be with Jesus. Again, Jesus has a resurrected, glorified body that is localized. He can’t be omnipresent , that’s why He sent the Holy Spirit, so there must be a “place” where we are with Him. The people gathered with Him at His ascension were told He would come again in like manner.
2 Cor 5:6 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:...(8) “ We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
Phil. 1:23, “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
The unbeliever is not in the presence of Jesus but kept in hell awaiting judgment.
Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.
2Pe 2:4, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;”
Jud 1:6, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”
1 Pet 3:18-20, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”
Rev. 20:11-15, “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Not to be Clintonian, but it depends on what “place” is.
I don’t think we would say God the Father lives in a house, yet Jesus says “my Father’s house”. Obviously there’s some metorphorization goin on.
If we look at heaven and hell as specific locations in time an space, with size, shape, etc - our usual meaning of “place”, then we’re further led to wonder, “where is this place?” Near another planet? Somewhere inside earth? And so on...
I’m thinking that this result would require us to look differently at the metaphor, or imagine something unimaginable to us.
thanks for your reply..
Exactly.. I Cor 2;9
I doubt it will come up because He knows that I know that there is only one mediator between God and men. The Church's interpretation of John 20:23 sets up man as an equal to God, and defies many other scriptures such as:
Isa 43:25 : "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.
Mic 7:18 : Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. .... [Apparently Micah didn't know who was coming to be a "God like Him".]
Acts 8:22 : Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. .... [Isn't it fascinating that Peter did not tell Simon to confess his sins to him (Peter), or any other Apostle, in order to receive forgiveness?]
Acts 13:38-39 : 38 "Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. .... [Paul knew what his authority really was. Nowhere does Paul, or anyone other Apostle say "Confess you sins to me and I will forgive you.]
There is no practice of men forgiving sins here, or anywhere else in the Bible that I can find. Even at Pentecost, did Peter conduct a mass confession to him? No, he said to repent in the name of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. I'm not certain, but this may be the only power supposedly granted by God that is never used as far as we know from scripture. I find that very odd.
There is ultimately just one interpretation of one verse, as opposed to many other verses that say it is God who forgives sins, and that Christ is our only mediator. Redefining the word "mediator", as the Church has done to allow the interposition of men in between God and His children, does not change what it means in the scriptures.
“Not to be Clintonian, but it depends on what “place” is.”
I understand the time/space problem, but then why the resurrected bodies? Jesus’ could be seen, touched and fed. It was glorified flesh that occupied space. If the resurrected disciples are to rule and saints are to rule, and we are to reign with Christ, who and what are we to reign over?
I will preach the Gospels to you; what do you give me? Why do so many people try to build theology upon other than the Gospels? Man is not equal to God; nothing in Christian Catholic theology even hints at it.
First addressed to Peter: Matt 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
And secondly addressed to all His disciples: Mat 18:18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
It is not the Catholics that do not adhere to the instructions of Christ. We do, and we do it very keenly. We are aware of those who do not; some of them boast and some of them do not boast. Nonetheless, they do not.
“Not to be Clintonian, but it depends on what “place” is.”
I understand the time/space problem, but then why the resurrected bodies? Jesus’ could be seen, touched and fed. It was glorified flesh that occupied space. If the resurrected disciples are to rule and saints are to rule, and we are to reign with Christ, who and what are we to reign over?
But I thought you said earlier that the Spirit is still indwelling, but is something like "dormant", until the mortal sin is resolved? The above doesn't sound like that, it sounds more like what Alex said. Based on what you've said, I was sort of expecting your answer to be that the Spirit would leave at the point of physical death, if the mortal sin is not taken care of.
Then either God will right my ship to show me the error of my ways (discipline, conscience, etc.), or He will take me home before I lose my salvation.
Actually, you don’t, not entirely, because you are in a state of sin right now, just as I and every other human is.
No. While I of course still sin from time to time, I am not "in a state of sin". Such a person is lost and is dead in sin, or a slave to sin. I am not that any longer. Now, I am a slave to righteousness, and in a state of Christ's justification.
Glorified flesh?.. Why not multifarious spirit(s)?..
Spirit that can assume the form of bodies on a whim.. like Angels.. only better..
Your options seem to be limited.. I Cor 2;9...
Jesus body could go thru walls..flesh cannot do that..
I am sure you have heard many on my side frequently speak of our having a "personal relationship" with Christ. Every other week my pastor emphasizes that such a personal relationship is really what Christianity is. I have gathered that the Church strongly disagrees with this idea, given that the laity are taught to first go through priests or saints for contact with (or action by) God. Do the priests themselves believe they have a personal relationship with God? Is the personal relationship you have heard us speak of more properly between the laity and the Church?
Confession is repentance, FK. If you repent, you are forgiven. Should you receive Christ without repentance?
I suppose under your beliefs, probably not. :) I have already repented, received Christ, and been forgiven. Since Christ will never leave me, I only needed to receive Him once.
Where does it say in the Bible we should confess sins (only) directly to God?
Logic would tell us to confess our sins to those who can forgive us. On a spiritual level, that is only God. I listed some scripture in 5785.
Confession to God is no effort, no fruit of repentance, because he already knows your sins. You don't have to tell Him anything!
Then you're not doing it right! :) While I am typing this to you, and hopefully not sinning depending on the words I choose :), I can intellectually know for certain that God knows everything I do and all that. Do you think that is what is going through my mind when I DO sin? No way. But when I confess directly to God, THEN I've got a problem because lying gets me nowhere. We can fool a priest, but there's no fooling God. By admitting to God I am also admitting to myself. Believe me, a true confession directly to God many times takes a lot of effort, at least for me. :)
FK: "Doesn't this go against everything we teach our children? If your child has wronged someone and wants to apologize face to face do you tell her to instead tell a friend to pass along the message?"
There you go with your children examples again. It's not the same, FK. God already knows. It's no effort 'fessing up to God.
The Bible is PACKED with children examples. What's wrong with them? :)
Loving those who love you is no accomplishment.
If you are referring to verses like Matt. 5:46, I'm not sure how it applies here. Do you not love your priest? Does he not love you? Do you really think the point of the Matthew verse was that loving those who love you is worthless? Or, was it perhaps motivational to get people to understand that we are to love everyone, including our enemies? I mean, Christ loved us first, right?
... okay, it is not an offer if you say "if the earth is hit by a comet tomorrow, you don't have to go to work." But if God makes a promise to someone, "If you do this, I will raise you" it is a promissory conditional offer.
It certainly "can" be taken that way, but that would have God bargaining at arm's length with humans. Does the God that you understand need to make deals? Or, does He use language like that in order to teach in terms we can understand? I think the latter.
It's about harming little ones. The discussion was about God killing little ones, hence the reference.
OK, I guess I was thinking that leading a child into sin, while very bad, was different than causing the time and manner of physical death. Plus, other humans are not ours to do with as we please, so there are rules for us. God has His own rules, some of which are the same, and some of which are different. His rules are not our rules. :)
Well, does that mean that God causes their deaths and everyone else's death is random? What about this idea? :
Ps 139:13 : For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
Do you suppose that knitting included congenital birth defects, abnormally strong heart muscles, below average immune systems, etc.? Or, do you suppose that we are made physically equal and everything after that happens by chance? If our time of death is irrelevant to God, then wouldn't it have to be the latter?
Did not Adam live to be over 900 years old? His soul died the day he ate the fruit (as the Lord said it would), but his body lived in sin for a long time, longer than any other human being I think.
I don't think we can have any idea how long Adam lived in sin. He might have repented an hour after he got chewed out by God. Who knows? We have some evidence that Eve repented, but we just aren't told about Adam.
FK: "I would fully agree that physical death is certainly no punishment for the elect."
Then why don't they celebrate when someone dies? Why don't they lead lives that promote brevity of life on earth, or just have somebody shoot them?
In my church we DO celebrate the lives of the departed. Of course, we also feel sorry for ourselves at our own loss. That is what mourning is supposed to be I think, and it is a Biblical practice. When a Christian I know dies, I don't feel sorry for him, only myself and the person's loved ones.
We are not to commit suicide because it breaks a Commandment. God obviously wants His children here for a time for His reasons. One of which is to fulfill the Great Commission. If we're all dead, then who is going to do the work? :) Plus, we have to stay alive long enough to make more future Christians. When enough have been made, He will let us know. :)
If it was good enough for Adam, it's good enough for the Protestant "elect." You have Adam's nature, it's called mortal. We all die because Adam sinned.
I forgot what the answer to the paradox was. Here, mankind benefits from the commission of sin, since if we never die, no one goes to be in Heaven with God. But mankind also benefited from the crucifixion. Are you sure God has no control over whenever sin happens? :)
What is the biblical meaning of "indwelling"? Perhaps that might help with understanding this. We know God is present EVERYWHERE, since anything that exists absolutely relies on God's effects. Thus, technically speaking, God doesn't "leave" a person in mortal sin, since then, that person would cease to exist. However, when we speak of indwelling, I think we are talking about something more than the Holy Spirit keeping us in existence. In this sense, when a person sins mortally, the indwelling is no longer effective. That is obvious, since to sin mortally requires that a man absolutely refuse God. However, we know that God CAN and DOES "re-indwell" within a person, because they can repent. Man cannot repent without God's graces.
Another thought is to consider how does a person FIRST come to Christ and repent? There must be some sort of "pre-Baptismal state" where the Spirit is not "indwelling" yet, but is still effective in some manner, calling a person to conversion and repentance.
Regards
Yes, I meant to say that Schaeffer was not calling these people bums, he just disagreed with them and noted their importance. About Kierkegaard, I think Schaeffer even said that he would have been disappointed at what his philosophy has led to.
I like Schaeffer’s thought. Of course once you put Kiekegaard on the “philosophy” shelf and take him off the “Christianity” shelf, the academics will try to purge him of any taint of Jesus. I think he was very committed to a relationship with Jesus and too impatient with the imperfections of other Christians. His writing is dense, but I found it beautiful.
That is a fascinating couple of statements.
“If you, F-K have the indwelling knowledge that you are of the elect and you are going to get to Heaven and there’s nothing that anyone can do about it, what if you don’t go and evangelize? What if you don’t do as you are commanded?
Then either God will right my ship to show me the error of my ways (discipline, conscience, etc.), or He will take me home before I lose my salvation. “
Are you saying that if you stop performing as God wants you to, and you resist any of His pressures to do so, then you’ll be taken up to Heaven with Him forever? Wow. Since Heaven is infinitely better than having a Democratic Congress and Senate, then isn’t that a very good reason to stop going about the Lord’s business?
“While I of course still sin from time to time, I am not “in a state of sin”.”
What happens to that sin that is committed from time to time? Is it of any consequence, or no?
Is this like saying God can sin?
Your first sentence is within time, but your second is not. If, to borrow a phrase :), "all time for God is NOW", which I have never disputed, then Jesus on the cross "happened" across all time. Therefore, why can't His sacrifice be in effect within time for all the OT righteous at the time they were alive?
My only problem is with the appearance of Moses at Mt. Tabor.
There it is. You raise an excellent point. If the sacrifice applied to Moses when he lived, then he would have been eligible to make that appearance.
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.