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 father saw his son returning. It says nothing of him "looking for him."
The decision was the son's, period.
Luke 15:
17
Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.
18
I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
19
I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’
20
So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.
21
His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’
It says that he caught sight of him a long way off. It mostly certainly does not say that he was looking for him. It DOES say that the prodigal son was welcomed back AFTER he repented. Not before.
“Your logic escapes me. St. Peter taught the Gospel taught to him by Christ.”
Of course it escapes you since you do not understand what Jesus is saying and what the Gospel is. Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me, and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”
They were unwilling to hear the Gospel because of their own self-righteousness and dead, stagnant ritualism. The very scriptures they were reading pointed towards the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” (the Gospel) and they were still relying on the discredited blood of bulls and goats. They could not believe that it was by grace through faith that they were saved (the Gospel)not any works they performed. They were more comfortable doing something than trusting Someone for their salvation.
What does the grammatical form have to do with the fact that Jesus is saying “for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me”? Jesus is telling them that the very scriptures (Old Testament) that they were studying reveal Him and they refuse to believe that.
“St. Peter taught the Gospel taught to him by Christ.”
But there were no written Gospels when he was teaching. In fact his first message on Pentecost was right out of the Old Testament being fulfilled before the eyes and ears of the audience. So your statement, “The only question is to determine who are Christians (those who start with the Gospel and interpret through it all other scripture)” is false unless you are now saying by “Gospel” you do not mean the first four books of the New Testament but the “good news” of salvation revealed in Jesus.
John 5:39 refers to the Old Testament. The NT wasn’t written and wouldn’t be for many years. They were told that their searching of the OT verses was in vain because they used them to attempt to gain eternal life and were ignoring Jesus, who was sent by the Father.
You guys really need the Magisterium more than you can possibly know.
What was Peter teaching? The epistles weren’t written, Revelation wasn’t written.
Peter taught the Good News of Christ as he experienced it. We understand them now as the four Gospels. But that is exactly what he taught, orally as opposed to written.
But Peter taught the Gospels. There was no other New Testament works at that point. So therefore the comment that Jesus made about searching the Scripture to find everlasting life being wrong referred to the OT.
Come to think of it, this is telling evidence against Sola Scriptura. Jesus left an Institution called the Catholic Church, not a bunch of Scripture to be worshipped. Is John 5:39 a direct command against worshipping Scripture?
“The father saw his son returning. It says nothing of him “looking for him.”
“The decision was the son’s, period.”
You really need to read the entire episode to understand what the lesson was that Jesus taught the Pharisees and scribes. The emphasis is on the person who lost something and what they did to find it, not the object lost.
“for I have found my sheep which was lost.”
“for I have found the piece which I had lost.”
“For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.”
Luk 15:2, “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying,”
Luk 15:4, “What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?......Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.”
Luk 15:8 “Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find [it]? And when she hath found [it], she calleth [her] friends and [her] neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.”
Luk 15:29, “.......But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put [it] on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on [his] feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill [it]; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry”
So are you saying that a working definition of Christian would be the acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the foundation of belief, with the rest of Scripture supporting rather than redefining it?
But, but, but, how can that be?
You refuse to submit to their, claimed authority. You search Scripture to weigh all doctrines and dogma. You TRUST the Holy Spirit. You TRUST JESUS as your master. Your FAITH is in the gospel not an institution. How can you be a Christian?
It is said to the Apostles, but it is said about all those who are graced with faith. Or does your Bible not contain verses 20 and 21? That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." -- John 17:20-21"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Jesus said He does not pray for the world, but only for those whom the Father has given Him which He said specifically includes the Apostles and "them also which shall believe on me."
Are you part of the "one" of which Jesus speaks, Mark? Do you "believe on" Christ?
"But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." [St. James 2:9]"
It seems your applying a verse to GOD that is meant for us. The 2nd chapter of James is about how the rich treat the poor. If you go back and read v.5-7 I think you might see the TRUTH.
The NT says partiality is wrong period. A biased judge is not a characteristic of a good judge.
Have you posted any Scripture to support this? What I'm seeing is partiality on our part is wrong, but GOD is the creator and we are the created. From the beginning GOD has been partial.
GOD won't tolerate sin in his presence, so he's partial to righteousness.
GOD sent his son to save some of us, so he's partial to those that are clothed in the righteousness of JESUS the CHRIST.
I have it sets division back two thousand years.
AMEN!
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield." -- Psalm 115:3-9"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
How can you miss "these are they which testify of Me."? The point is the very law they were searching gave evidence of who JESUS is.
You guys really need the Magisterium more than you can possibly know.
ROFLOL
You ask those with eyes to see to become blind so you can give them a cane. The words are right there if you want to see them, just ask the LORD to guide you.
Context, Dr. E., context.
Begin in Chapter 13, when Jesus gathers all of the Apostles together for the Last Supper. He speaks to and about them through to Chapter 17, verse 19.
At verse 20, he THEN says “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. “
Is it not apparent that He changes the objects of His discourse at verse 20? I pray (now) not only for them (the Apostles), but also for (all) those who would believe in His Word.
This is simply moving from the more specific (the Apostles gathered) to the general (the world of men).
20
“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
23
I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.
The world, Dr. E. All of it. All men. So that all men may know that You sent me and that you loved all of them even as you loved me. Sounds pretty inclusivist to me.
Jesus is saying here that God’s love is for all men, not just those whose names were picked out of the cosmic cookie jar. No wonder you guys shun the Gospels in favour of Paul.
Psalm 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Luke 15:3
And he spake this parable unto them, saying, 15:4
What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
It is unfortunate that you do not see the circular argument you present... You tell us that those of the flock persevere - and I agree. Yet, what you don't see is WHO IS PART of this flock.
"I'm part of the flock"
"why"
"Because I'm of the elect and all the elect are part of the flock."
How do you know you are of the elect?
"Because I am part of the flock Can't you understand that???"
Oh boy... No. Does Jesus name you as part of the flock?
{said with a stamping of feet and jumping up and down}"But I'm part of the flock, so when the bible talks about the flock, Jesus is speaking about me personally."
"Naturally... It is good to know that you have told God that you are part of the flock. And here I thought God decided who was part of the flock.
You have no way of knowing that you will be part of that flock at the end, until you are judged accordingly. God judges ALL, and at that time, it will be obvious which side of the fence you belong. But until that time, all we can do is "know" today whether we are persevering. We do not know we will persevere 10 years from now. That is denying the possibility of falling away. People fall away, people who make the exact same claims that you do (I am part of the flock because I said so).
Persevere until the end. Do not presume.
Regards
All right, let’s examine it again.
39
You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
40
But you do not want to come to me to have life.
Phrase 1: You search the scriptures.
Phrase 2: because you think you have eternal life through them;
Jesus is refuting the idea that you can have eternal life through the scriptures because of the phraseology. He is telling them that they are wrong.
He further tells them:
Phrase 3: even though they testify on my behalf you do not want to come to me to have life.
He is telling them the He is the Via to Heaven, not the scripture. The scripture gives evidence of Jesus, but only Jesus is the Way. You must come to Jesus, not Scripture.
Scripture is a map; the map is not the thing. Jesus Is. Scripture describes Jesus.
The sheep in this example didn’t repent.
He was kidnapped and forcibly brought back. No repentence. Forced repentence is no repentence at all.
DR.E: It is said to the Apostles, but it is said about all those who are graced with faith. Or does your Bible not contain verses 20 and 21?
In the never ending futile quest to try and create something that doesn't exist, a physical institution that controls who is saved and who isn't, they deny Scripture. They would have us believe that the gospel must be filtered through the apostles alone. How they must resent Paul, he was not of the twelve.
The word Christian means an anointed one.
A "Christian" is an anointed one because he has received the Holy Spirit from Christ "the Anointed." Anointed by Whom? By the Father, at Jesus' baptism.
"But ye have an unction [or "anointing"] from the Holy One," that is, from Christ; and again. "the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you" (1 John 2:20, 27), for just as we read of "the Spirit descending and remaining on him" (John 1:33) so He abides with us "forever" (John 14:16).
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.