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.
“That’s not the first time we’ve agreed.
We both agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.
We both agree that the Church includes all true believers of all time.
(And we both agree that doner kebab...or its Greek cousin.... is extremely good eating.)”
You and I agree virtually all the time on the non religion threads! :)
But we do agree pretty regularly here too, at least in the broad sweeps. I hasten to add, however, that I don’t know if The Church contains all true believers of all time. I know it contains all the true Orthodox, beyond that I simply don’t know. I suspect its not for me to know; it certainly isn’t for me to define or determine!
I knew I was pushing it on that one. :>)
Church Invisible.
“You might not have noticed with all the back slapping and high fives this was before Catholic came to mean Rome.”
So, when a fledgling enterprise moves its HQ, that invalidates it, does it?
So when the fledgling United States of America decided to move its capital from Philly to D.C., that invalidated it?
As usual, you post the same 3 or 4 verses that really say NOTHING about individual salvation. Again, you misinterpret the Scriptures meant for a community, the Church. Here, Paul is telling Gentiles that the various Gentile COMMUNITIES were elected to co-exist with those "remnant Jews" who remained within the Church, the People of God. None of this is predestination to heaven, but predestination to the Church.
For example, Paul continues:
"to the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he has made us accepted in the beloved; in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace" Eph 1:6-7
We all know that forgiveness of sins can be "removed". We know that we must ask for forgiveness of sins when we sin again. We know from Scriptures that even those who were once forgiven can return to the "vomit" of their former lifes, making it worse than if they had NEVER come to knowledge of the truth. Clearly, forgiveness is not "once given". Clearly, this tells us Paul's intent was in regards to election into the community, a community that was CONDITIONAL.
Ephesians 2 does not have anything to do with being everlastingly secure in your position in heaven. It says the same thing in Romans 5 - that God reached down to save us, even when we were in sin - BEFORE we merited ANYTHING. Paul then goes on to say we are saved by grace, not by works of the law. Which Catholic does not agree with that?
And finally, the most quoted section of the Gospels by the reformed (and practically the only), the "flock". Again, the emphasis is on the FLOCK, the COMMUNITY. The people of God will SURELY enter heaven. It says NOTHING about WHO specifically is PART of the flock. Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:21 that some people THOUGHT they WERE part of the "flock" - and were WRONG!
In other words, merely saying it is meaningless.
Your often-quoted Scriptures say NOTHING about the individual's predestination to heaven. At the most, predestination is for the community in these verses - predestination INTO the community.
Regards
Certainly.
The Christian holy day is Sunday, rather than the Jewish Saturday. Not called out in Scripture; it is a declaration of the Church. If you follow Sunday as the Holy Day, you are bowing to the Church’s wisdom.
The amassing of the Bible is non Scriptural. We did it under the auspices of the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther and his merry band of Scriptural Visigoths attempted evisceration of the Bible under the auspices of the brightest angel.
There are a few more, such as Church-directed days of fasting and abstinance. More disciplines than doctrines, by the way. No meat on Lenten Fridays. Observances like that.
“I’m mostly kidding but what you are saying here is that the Godly thing to do would have been for me to impose my will over and above the free will of the child in order to save him from himself. Yet, your side expressly prohibits God from doing that for us. So, I would assume that you would blame God for every time one of His children decides to stroll off a cliff right in front of Him. :)”
Nope. I do understand, however that God does save people from physical harm on occasion, if post-seeming-miracle folks are to be believed. We believe in predestination to Heaven, not to hell. If you are hell-bent (!) on going to hell, then I suppose that you eventually get there. We do not say that God does not save people; we say that God saves all except for those who will not be saved.
The explanation of primary and secondary causes in the WCF is designed to obscure and not be clear. If God is the author of all, including all people, then the WCF’s explanation of primary and secondary is meaningless, since the author of an object that is designed to operate in a specific fashion, unless he specifically stops or alters the operation, is expressly responsible for that object’s actions.
If I install a brake system that is designed to fail in a car, then I am responsible for the failure of that brake system. If God installs a guaranteed failure mechanism in us that ensures that we go to hell, then God is responsible, not us.
If I’m walking by a house (with window close to the sidewalk - I’m not really a peeping Tom) and I see a 3 year old striking matches and starting a fire, then I am legally AND morally obligated to step in and save that child and any others that I become aware of.
I do not say that God owes man anything. I just read Scripture and see what He has promised to us. I don’t think that God lies, unlike some of our friends on these boards.
“Calvin should have listened....”
He did listen and rejected the impotent god for the God of David’s Psalm 94:8-11, “Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.”
Under De Sales theory, what did God do for those He foreknew would not respond to His offer of grace?
I have no idea of what the RCC thinks; however, I think He used parables because they were extremely effective means of communicating. I don't think they were used to hide anything.
Actually I always felt the Old Testament showed God's direct interaction with man. I felt that if I could understand why God worked as He did with Moses, Abraham, David, Jonah, Daniel, etc., I would understand how God works in our lives.
I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the OT. I would suggest that it contains pointed clues as to God's character and how He relates to us.
The writings of the earliest fathers of the Church testify that what we believe today is what they believed at the beginning of the first century. It's simple, BD: they tell us in their writings. These historical documents tesitfy to their revealed faith. And they show us that what they believed then is what we believe now.
So what are the infallible documents and foundation and how do you know they are reliable?
They don't claim infallibility. They are testaments to their faith. They express the same faith across ages.
No, I just want to know what the church is relying on for its salvation...
Our Lord Jesus Christ
...and how it knows whatever it is relying on will get it there
By following Him in faith, as testified by the earliest Christian fathers.
Why pray for the "elect?" Their "election" is immutably predestined in Reformed theology.
Why doe sit matter what the Reformed know. God knows everything and you need not worry who the "elect" are. You have been given the commandment to teach the world and baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It doesn't say "to the elect."
The "elect" is something St. Paul used to show that the Christians are really the New Israel (people fo God), and as such His "chosen" sheep. However, Christ's minsitry shows that this was not an election of privilege but of sacrifice and mercy.
Parables were used because the vast majority of the people were illiterate and would not be able to remember a straight teaching without notes.
A parable was the best way to have the people remember them, take them back to their families and repeat them to themselves and the next generation, keeping reasonably accurate teachings and remembering their points.
This is how the generation of icons began. If 98% of the people cannot read, it is a logical development to develop icons that they can remember things by.
I understand that our Western society is reasonably literate in terms of our incoherant and liberal publications, but, as is demonstrated soundly, ably and with great enthusiasm here, functionally Scripturally illiterate.
Perhaps a return to the Icons might serve society quite well.
Good. Yes. I also think stories are very effective ways to communicate, they tell more and they’re a more interesting means - plus, given the subject matter there’s more depth and discovery possible.
“As usual, you post the same 3 or 4 verses that really say NOTHING about individual salvation.”
The fixation on communal salvation is troubling. What good is the insistance on free will if the real salvation is in mass hysteria? Acts is filled with evidence of individual salvation outside of any faith community. Here are a few examples:
Acts 8:35-39, The Ethiopian eunuch.
Acts 10:1-6, 42-44 Cornelius
Acts 13:7, 12 Sergius Paulus
Acts 13:47-48 Gentiles at Antioch
Acts 16:14 Lydia
Acts 16:29-34 Philippian jailor
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue
Romans 16:5, 13 Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia, Rufus chosen in the Lord,
2 Tim. 1:5 Timothy
Titus 1:4 Titus, mine own son after the common faith
Philemon 10 Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:
“The writings of the earliest fathers of the Church testify that what we believe today is what they believed at the beginning of the first century”
And you know they are true and reliable by what source? Is the church saying that thse documents are inspired or the equivalent of the revealed writings we call the scripture?
There are very few "dogmas" in Orthodoxy. One is the dogma of Theotokos. The other one is of the Holy Trinity. They are usually incomprehensible truths known to the Church through God's revelation "by word of mouth and episle."
Orthodox teaching on salvation (soteriology) is tied to God the Word assuming human nature, by Enfleshment or Incarnation, in addition to havig His divine nature, and through the testament of His ministry (the Gospels) together with other scriptures and teaching which remained unwritten but known to the Church.
Orthodoxwiki describes it thusly:
Clearly, before Incarnation and Christ's passion for all sins committed, past, present and future, no salvation was possible. There was no Baptism and no Church. Christ is the only factor that made Salvation possible; and He made it possible for all.
Salvation is achieved through Baptism, Mysteries (Sacraments) and at the Final Judgment.
I realize you don't agree with this, but then I am not soliciting and opinon; I am merely replying to your question.
Spot on Mark! Heresy indeed!
Amen. Amen. Amen.
““Can no Greek word have a Hebrew origin?”
No. Greek is sufficient unto itself for theological purposes. After all, it was good enough for God! :)”
Reminds me of Ma Ferguson, governor of Texas:
If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, then it’s good enough for Texas.
Ma Ferguson
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/maferguson146000.html
Mark: And this doesn’t clue you in on the errancy of Calvinism? May the Lord shine upon you and whack you on the head
LOL! :)
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.