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 think giving you a definition of Total Depravity will answer these questions.
IN the Westminster Confession the doctrine of Total Inability is stated as follows: — “Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”l
It sounds to me like if sin bothers you, in other words you do not lack a conscience or compassion - which would classify you as a sociopath - you have had your wants changed by God (in your terms) and is therefore elect.
Do you believe "whatsoever is not of faith is sin?"
Or is Paul wrong in Romans?
What do you mean by saying we are defining this thing down?
It sounds to me like if sin bothers you, in other words you do not lack a conscience or compassion - the lack of which would classify you as a sociopath - you have had your wants changed by God (in your terms) and you are therefore elect.
That's why I'm seeing this as defining elect down to equal "not a sociopath".
I mean no offense D-fendr, but I just do not understand many of your posts. Maybe it's me. Dunno.
By definition, only the elect have hearts that have been regenerated by God and minds that have been renewed by the Holy Spirit unto the truth of Christ risen.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
I think it goes even further back than that. :)
You're the one asking all the questions and the "cloud-like" lack of understanding. We're the ones with answers.
"Sociopaths?" That's a peculiar word choice. Are you among God's family? Are you a sociopath?
Or do you not know whom you have believed?
Sorry, I’ll try again.
I’m going off on the recent discussion of free will, the before and after parts:
Before: “only capable of choosing sin; only want to sin - always”
After: “want not to sin, can choose to sin, but bothered by it, etc..”
My points were:
- I don’t know anyone who has always chosen sin always and always - I think they’d be dead before high school in fact.
- Being bothered by sin, by stealing, harming others, doing what we know is wrong, is a function of conscience, or formation thereof. (A complete religious education involves this integrally, so it’s not a purely secular concept.)
Therefore, I’m seing what you call being elect as what I and others would call having a conscience (regardless of whether we always choose to follow it).
Which would mean, to me: If you have a conscience and you walk into the Calvinist framework - you’re elect.
Who writes the law in our hearts and is it with indelible or disappearing ink?
Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to be clearer.
Here’s why I used the term sociopath.
If fallen man, the non-elect, non-regenerated, etc., can only freely wills to sin, to do evil always, these are his only “wants” - as was said earlier, then this person is also properly described as devoid of conscience and incapable of compassion.
By definition this is a sociopath.
So that’s where the choice came from.
God. Our conscience is from God. That's why increasing spiritual development and formation of conscience are inseparable.
God is a hijacker of people, in other words.
We’re back to the robot slave scenario again, I’m afraid. I think back to the article on Spurgeon.org that the good Dr. E. had such trouble with.
“Hyper Calvinism is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners.”
Does that come across in anyone’s posts here? There are many posts that openly state that man has no conscious role in his own salvation. God elects and man has no choice. If man has no choice, then he has zero moral and spiritual responsibility.
Westminster Confession
Chapter XXXIII
Of the Last Judgment
I. God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ,[1] to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.[2] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged,[3] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.[4]
II. The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.[5]
III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:[6] so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.[7]
Objection the 1st: “all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.” If they have no moral choice in their deeds because God withheld His Saving Grace, of what justice is the judgement? What is the difference if they are Judged or not, since the non elect are going to hell and the elect are going to Heaven?
Objection 1a) If deeds are not of interest, then why are deeds judged before the Tribunal of Christ? What is the purpose of the Judgement?
Objection the 2nd: “but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.” If they were prevented from knowing God by God withholding His Grace from them, of what justice is the judgement? What is the purpose anyway, since the preordination of the elect and the non elect is written on their souls before they were even born. The ticket is already stamped.
Objection the 3rd: “As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin...” But by Reformed definition, the non elect cannot be deterred from sin. This makes no sense.
That's really a pathetic analogy, d.
All men are fallen and anything not of faith is sin. Therefore, any good works we might do will come from God, according to His will for us. He gives us a new heart. He gives us new eyes and ears. He changes our wills from disobedient to obedient. He renews our minds and turns us from our wants to His.
Where's the Scripture that says God does not do all this, because you've been given massive amounts of Scripture that say these very things?
you have had your wants changed by God
Thank God.
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)" -- Ephesians 2:1-5"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Every human being has a conscience.
The freedom to choose to sin or not sin comes from a changed heart. When God gives a man a new heart, that man is Elect.
The Biblical Laws of Human Depravity:
1. The Spiritually Dead are born wicked. (Genesis 8:21, Psalms 58:3)
2. All humanely-benevolent works of the Spiritually Dead are considered by God to be unclean filthiness. (Isaiah 64:6)
3. As long as his is Spiritually Dead, the Unregenerate Man never freely wills the action of Righteous Good. (Jeremiah 13:23)
4. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are only and always set upon the doing of evil. (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
5. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, The hearts of Unregenerate Men are spiritually insane. (Ecclesiastes 9:3)
6. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always despise the Light of Grace. (John 3:19)
7. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always reject the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:51)
8. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER seek God. (Romans 3:10-11)
9. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER will any action whatsoever of Righteous Good. (Romans 3:12)
10. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, it is defined as BIBLICALLY-IMPOSSIBLE that the Unregenerate Man should ever will any Righteous Good. (Romans 7:18)
11. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men NEVER perform any God-pleasing Action of Will whatsoever. (Romans 8:5-8)
12. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men are utterly incapable of knowing, understanding, or believing any Spiritual Truth. (1Corinthians 2:14)
If nothing that we do matters, then what is the purpose of the Judgement and the emphasis on deeds?
Why the Sermon on the Mount? Why the Beatitudes if nothing that we do matters?
All people are born to go to hell. God was pleased that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and introduced death into the world God made all people and foreordained their final destination. Therefore God makes people to go to hell under Reformed theology. For proof, I turned to the:
Westminster Confession
Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[1] This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.[2]
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God,[3] and so became dead in sin,[4] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[5]
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[6] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[7]
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[13] does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[14] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[15] and curse of the law,[16] and so made subject to death,[17] with all miseries spiritual,[18] temporal,[19] and eternal.[20]
I don’t understand the ‘how’ of hell. You don’t either. Nobody does. I just understand the ‘what’ of hell. But I still direct you back to the WCF’s fascinating statements to the effect that God is pleased that so many of His people roast in hellfire forever.
If you really read the Westminster Confession, you might be tempted to reverse your statement.
Try the opening lines of Chapter VI for starters.
Does that mean that no pagans can do good?
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.