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.
8~)
Ask Paul. He’s already given us the answer.
Thanks for the Catechism quotes. But here, the Holy Spirit does not really blow wither He wills, but rather wither He is brought? :) I know the priest asks, but has the Spirit ever said "no"? If not, then the Spirit follows the lead of the priest. There are plenty of concrete examples in the Bible of the Spirit entering those who were already believers. Are there any of the Spirit entering unbelieving infants?
(1213) ... “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.”
OK, so regeneration is at baptism and is confirmed later. So, presumably, if a child for some reason is never confirmed, that should not affect his status.
If God has ordained perseverance, and He ensures that perseverance is guaranteed, then what effort is required? If it’s His will, and His actions, and His perseverance, then what in the world does He need (some of) us for?
I'm not sure what you mean by "effort". If "effort" means free will works apart from God, then no further effort is required. If effort means the accomplishing of God's plan for us on earth per His direction then the effort is in the execution. God wants me to evangelize so He causes me to get up and go do that in various ways. ...... God actually does not "need" us for anything. While we are very loved, we are no where near that important. God is not my co-pilot.
That’s interesting circular logic: all true Christians fall away and are brought back so that shows a true Christian. All untrue Christians fall away and are not brought back (or never were, they just appeared to be there), so that by definition they are not true Christians.
Well no wonder you didn't quote me first before you wrote this. It wouldn't have made any sense then. Here is what I actually said:
FK: "It is common for true Christians to fall away temporarily, but God ALWAYS either brings them back or brings them home."
Unless you are responding to some other part of my post, I don't see how these really relate to each other.
Could you expand on the bringing back process? How does one know if one is brought back?
The same way one can know one is saved. A person either stops (or never starts) living a Godly life in service to the Lord by bearing fruit. At some point God changes this and brings the person back home so that he does bear fruit.
I agree that the thief is a special exception. Jesus brought him to Salvation by His own direct action. We have no recourse to such action; we go along in the fashion that He directed us.
GOODNESS, Mark! :) If you're not going to post my comment that you're responding to, do I really have to go back and do it to avoid grievous error? :) Here is what I actually said:
Do you see the thief as a special exception, and not consistent with what is otherwise taught in scripture? I do not. Grace through faith, period. :) His perseverance was his dying testimony. He was no different than any of us. (emphasis added)
There are no special exceptions among men for salvation, just as there are no special exceptions among men being without sins.
Would that be:
How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?
Everyone has a conscience. No man is without excuse. The world testifies to a sovereign Creator of all creation. And one day, all knees will bow to only Him.
Alamo-Girl has given a much better Scriptural understanding than I ever could of the differences between a natural man and a spiritual man. Those differences are real and God-given.
"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
Natural man is not capable of doing righteousness because he remains in his post-Adam condition -- fallen and sinful.
Only those who have had their sins covered by the blood of Christ, names ordained by God from before the foundation of the world, can and will cast off the old man and put on the new man in Christ.
If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." -- Ephesians 4:20-24"But ye have not so learned Christ;
Do men create their own "new man" or does God create the new man in order for men to put him on as "the elect of God, holy and beloved?" (Colossians 3:12).
ROFLOL, you have such a good sense of humor!
Please explain "naturally" wanted to please God.
Does that mean "without God"? Well, that goes without saying. However, the Spirit blows where HE wills, and thus, writes within even the pagan a law on his heart. God's Spirit enables man to desire to please God, as noted in Hebrews 6.
Regards
Not at all. This is the very nature of God. Augustine noticed this in the following two passages:
Eze 36:26-27 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
It was based upon this reasoning that Augustine rightfully deduced his prayer:
This is the heart of Christianity. God commands all men to repent, but God must grant repentance.
Augustine was pretty clever.
God is mediated through the Scriptures, but that is not His essence. No one can see God and live. To see is to know. Do you think that the Bible is God??? This question keeps coming up - and I am beginning to think that some Protestants, perhaps subliminally, worship the Bible...
You know ABOUT God. To know God is through experiencing Him through prayer. Then, we learn that we are really ignorant about God HIMSELF. The human mind that claims to "know" God as you is actually lowering God to a creation and worshiping this creation. We cannot comprehend the transcendant, the infinite. Those who claim to are ignorant about their ignorance.
But the word of God and the power of God are stronger than any atmospheric condensation...
God's words are not God. Again, you are merely showing that you are worshiping the bible, rather than God. And regarding inspiration, even that is not God.
Keep looking.
Regards
That was Kosta; I'm always nice. :)
If 'sociopathic' is nice, please go back to your former fallen ways.
You misunderstood what I was saying. I certainly wasn't calling you sociopathic.
That was my point. And it seems to me the descriptions of free will and changing "wants" was a description of someone with and without a conscience.
There are many posts that openly state that man has no conscious role in his own salvation.
Not enough! God willing, one day EVERY post will state the truth that man has "no conscious role" in electing himself. It is all of God. "Salvation is of the Lord." (Jonah 2:9)
God elects; Christ redeems; the Holy Spirit sanctifies. What a glorious plan for creation.
God elects and man has no choice. If man has no choice, then he has zero moral and spiritual responsibility.
All men are responsible for every action they undertake. And God elects unconditionally without regard to men's good works. Those two sentences do not contradict one another. They are both true. Read the rest of the Westminister...
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8] V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11] VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16] VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17] VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]
Of God's Eternal Decree
As always, the footnotes refer to Scripture found at the site.
"...called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season..."
I just love that line. "Ripeness is all," said Shakespeare. And so it is.
Ping to 8,132.
Great post.
LOLOL!
I think that would make a great tagline :>)
“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.”
The sin of the unregenerate man is in NOT loving the one true God. We ALL sin. In Christ we find forgiveness for our sin. The unregenerate man can do good works, but he will not love God on his own accord. This is what we refer to as ‘common grace’. In reformed theology we understand that man is depraved, but not utterly so.
Who can refute it?
7. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always reject the ministrations of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 7:51) 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) 6. As long as they are Spiritually Dead, the hearts of Unregenerate Men always despise the Light of Grace. (John 3:19)
lol.
No man is prevented from believing in Jesus Christ. But many men do not believe in Jesus Christ.
Do you think those men actually want to believe in Jesus Christ? If that's true, then why don't they? Do unbelievers wish to be who they are or someone else?
Because every unbeliever I know is perfectly happy being an unbeliever. In fact, many of them think Christians are nuts and they are "happy" not to be numbered among them.
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.