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.
The fact that it took several questions to elicit the answer should tell us we really, really hate to acknowledge someone having control over us.
FWIW, when I was first asked that question, it took me months to sputter out a resentful "no."
But in answering the question, it becomes clear that God's omniscience is exactly the same thing as God's predestination. What God knows will happen will happen, no matter what. Nothing comes before God's knowledge of the future and nothing precedes God's creative decree for that future.
God is outside of time, but God did create the world inside of time. And at the moment of creation, all history was decided by His perfect purpose. As you said, whatever God knows will happen, will happen.
Further, if God wanted something else to happen, He would have foreseen the disagreeable event and altered its course so it would conform to what He wanted to occur in the future.
The result would be the same. What occurs is what God wants to occur, one way or another.
To deny this is to deny the paradox at the heart of our lives. Rather than deny it; we should embrace it. It is all of God, and it is all good. "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:10
If God knows you will believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior until you die, is your spiritual destination undecided? Or is it set in stone in the mind of God because it was God who gave you that faith in the first place?
(((shudder)))
I have had a very rough couple of months. Buried three friends, and actively involved in all three memorials. It took a drain on me emotionally. I took a week off from work and everything else and just basically vegged. Spent some time with my grandson on the beach and worked around the house. I missed our conversations.
We all have choices to make and every one of those choices is part of God's plan for His creation, determined by Him from before the foundation of the world.
Your answer was "NO," there is "no chance" you will not oversleep and miss the bus if that is what God "foresaw" for the future.
No chance.
So what kind of "choice" gives us "no chance" for another choice but the one already designated?
"From the end of the earth will I cry unto thee, when my heart is overwhelmed: lead me to the rock that is higher than I." -- Psalm 61:2
Thank you. It is the Lord who sustains me through all trials. He is the rock on which I cling.
Indeed. Very true, brother.
It all depends on your definition and understanding of what free will really is.
I believe that only the elect have free will, the will to do good or evil in God’s eyes. The non-elect cannot please God in any way, so all of their choices are of and for their sin nature. The non-elect have no desire to do God’s will, nor can they. Their only choices are sin or not sin. The elect’s choices are sin, not sin, and do God’s will (good works). No one seeks God, God chooses his own.
Yes, no, yes.
Of course Jesus was very clear. He talks about obeying God and having faith in Him. However, Jesus doesn't give an indication of who is a member of the flock based on past performance or past belief. In your three verses, please note that they are in the present tense. We know we are saved NOW. We know He abides in us NOW. And as long as we persevere, we WILL be saved. However, believing last week is pointless if you don't believe today. Obeying God last week and willfully sinning today is a problem.
That was my point. I wanted to point out the importance of perseverance over presumption.
Regards
You answered: Simple, sheep have shepherds.
So do goats...
Regards
lol. And they are known by their shepherd and they follow him
Goats have shepherds, as well. And they follow their shepherds. Thus, we are known by our fruits.
Regards
As Christ's sheep, we follow Him alone.
The operant word in your statement is suffering. Would you feel the same "joy" at the death of your five year-old child, or a 25 year-old spouse, or both middle-age parents who are not suffering?
Funny thing is, despite attempts by Protestants to sugar-coat the issue, Christian people don't act happy at funerals. Pharisees come to mind.
No it tells us nothing of the sort. My many answers were illustrations that the question and answer do not mean what you obviously thought it did.
Well, the Passover lamb doesn't have to be a lamb; it can just as well be goat according to Jewish law. But I am sure you knew that...
Too bad everyone doesn't believe this. It makes persevering a lot easier when we know it is according to His will for our lives.
Doesn't it ever occur to you to wonder why your church doesn't preach this truth? Maybe it's because this is one of the ways it keeps control over its adherents -- by making them fearful of losing God's abiding love.
Sort of like Lucy swiping the football in the Peanuts cartoon.
If Christ will lose none of His sheep, then it is only logical all His sheep will persevere to the end.
If God knows you will oversleep tomorrow, and you now agree there is no chance you will not oversleep tomorrow, what “choice” do you really have?
And yet the lamb who saved you and me is not a goat, but the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
I would hope you know that.
No it doesn't, else omniscience would equal predestination which it doesn't and it would necessarily add up to TULIP, and it doesn't.
Further, if God wanted something else to happen, He would have foreseen the disagreeable event and altered its course so it would conform to what He wanted to occur in the future.
You are thinking that omniscient=predestination=TULIP, necessarily and - you think - logically proven so. But you have not made omniscient=predestination and you certainly haven't made TULIP the only possible logical outcome from God's omniscience.
To illustrate, try this:
- God is omniscient and omnipotent.
- If God wished creation otherwise He would have made creation otherwise.
- God made man with free will.
None of these statements violate either logic or God's omniscience and omnipotence. And all can be true and TULIP false.
TULIP does NOT necessarily and logically flow from God's omniscience, which was the fallacy inherent in your original question.
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.