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.
How do you know that?
Aggressive Calvinist.....
Haven’t seen him in a long time.
:>)
Not unless you try to make TULIPs out of it.
Because he who actually HEARS the word of God with ears given by God WILL ACTUALLY understand and be saved.
Did Jesus say "unto all it is given to know the kingdom of God?"
No, He did not. Read the text. It says nothing about safety or politics.
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." -- Mark 4:10-12 "And when he (Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Read the text. Jesus DOES NOT say He's speaking in parables so He's not done in by political forces. He says explicitly He speaks in parables so that not all will understand Him," and be converted and their sins should be forgiven them."
Time and again Jesus takes every opporunity to tell us He is speaking only to His sheep about His sheep. You're missing the great Christian assurance of God's perfect plan of redemption, Mark. Would that you had eyes to see it.
You lack of a cogent response is noted. 8~)
Ahem...Your lack of a cogent response is noted.
A simple compare and contrast works for me:
A certain man had two sons:
And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Ah, it's there. If you but had ears to hear...
;)
Except Paul and Luke...
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7
Read Ephesians 1 and 2. Men's good works are nothing; all good works by men were ordained by God and accomplished through the Holy Spirit. God elects, Christ redeems, the Holy Spirit sanctifies.
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:10
Be careful of becoming a religious hypocrite
When you have to resort to name-calling, you've lost on points.
“So I guess you got no clothes,” — Ossie Davis in “Joe Vs. the Volcano.”
“Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
That gives you the last word on nonsense.
You do recognize the difference!
Parables are not secret code that Calvin found the decoder ring for.
There are a means of teaching stories. Different levels of meaning are possible. Hence, “ears to hear” and different people getting more or less of the story’s point as Jesus explained.
As I said several posts back.
This is the meaning of the scripture - but you have to read it without Calvinism special decoding.
As I said, several posts back.
Oooh, I looove when you quote Mark. :)
That’s one thing about the Calvinists; they will have no truck with humility. There was no humility in Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) and there is no humility in his followers. I really didn’t think that a true Calvinist can really understand the washing of the feet or the fact that Jesus, the Lord of all, humbled Himself first to become a human, and then, to do something that the Jews of the time considered to be beneath everything except the very lowly, and then, to do something that only the lowliest of the criminals were rewarded with - crucifixion.
There is no humility in the WCF. There is no humility in the Shorter Confession, and I suspect there is none with the Longer. If you like, I’ll weigh in when I’ve finished deconstructing it.
Sloppy slurs? I challenge you to refute any of the charges that I nail up on the Calvinist doors. One of your companions has attempted to lie about my posts and their content as to the Faith versus his; and when challenged has gotten vewwy vewwy qwiet. Bring ‘em on, I say. Line ‘em up and we’ll knock ‘em down. Thin theological ice, I have said, and all I have been given is proof from your side. Thanks, really. You guys make it easier than it should be.
Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) has demonstrated that his Scriptural proofs are of the most sophomoric order and very often irrelevant - as I posted some time ago. He was a despotic thug of the order but not the scale of Pol Pot.
Do you mean Rome or the Vatican? I guess that vibrating at the end of the Calvinist string causes one to lose perspective, or possibly just reality. The Vatican is a country, a theological state with the Pope as its head.
Rome is a city, with a mayor. It is a city in the country of Italy. If you require, I will post a Google Map link so that you can go to it.
Are you unaware of Calvin’s theological rule? Are you unaware of the good burghers of Geneva that he had executed under his religious rule? Are you unaware of the rackings and whippings that he ordered? Is Google your friend for finding these stories or do you require links as well? You seem to have the minimum daily requirement of intelligence. How is it that you are unaware of his atrocities?
How is it that you quote Isaiah to refute Jesus?
I think that you are dancing with glee, along with the others in your elitist club. And, to the contrary, it is not the Holy Spirit that I ridicule. I believe that the Holy Spirit is an equal part of the Triune God. I do not believe, as some Calvinists do, that the Holy Spirit is a messenger or emissary of either the Father or the Son. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost entered the Apostles and Mary and so the Church began. The Holy Spirit entered me at the baptism that my parents sought for me.
I do not take Him lightly. It is Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) that I take lightly. The Reformed blaspheme against the Holy Spirit because they apparentely have a touch of Macedonianism while holding the completely incompatible doctrine of Montanism.
You guys amaze me. The spiritual Twister games that the Reformed display ought to be put on video.
Once again, you appear to be looking at the Bible in terms of 21st Century thought.
It was the style of teaching of the day. Just as today it is fashionable to tell it like it is, in those days, religious teachers always taught in parables. Volumes upon volumes of rabbinical writings from that era have survived to this day, and they all attest that parables were the way to go. People expected religious leaders to speak in parables. The teachers who were better storytellers developed a larger following.
Parables make teachings easier to remember and apply.
In the parable of the lost son, the son got into a terrible fix, but he realized that in his situation he had nothing to lose and everything to gain by attempting a reconciliation with his father. In the parable there was a happy ending, but if you are ever in desperate straits, and you remember this parable, you might realize that even if the reconciliation doesn’t come off, you’re still no worse off. So by remembering the parable, you might attempt a reconciliation that you otherwise wouldn’t think of.
Parables are more enduring than telling it like it is.
Social problems come and go. The way it is becomes the way it was. Old sermons addressing old social problems are out of touch with today. Parables deal with basic principles, whereas telling it like it is deals with how those principles apply to specific situations.
If the situation changes, the telling it like it was becomes irrelevant, but the parable lives on.
Jesus’ parables are still relevant to everyday life even after 2,000 years and technological, social, and political changes beyond anyone’s wildest imagining. Since Jesus spoke, four additional continents were discovered. Yet His parables live on. On the other hand, a sermon that told it like it was about the hippie movement or miniskirts less than thirty years ago would sooner move the congregation to nostalgia than to repentance.
Parables allow you to make statements that would otherwise get you in trouble.
In old England, political commentary was dangerous, so newspapers printed transparent rhymes. All those nursery rhymes like Humpty Dumpty and Little Jack Horner were political satires. Parables and rhymes have always been a form of political or social commentary in societies where either custom or the law does not permit such things to be said in plain words. Many of Jesus’ parables made the Pharisees angry, because they taught things that weren’t to their liking, but stated them indirectly. The only teaching Jesus got in trouble for was His plain teaching that He is the Son of God.
Parables have a time-release effect; they plant seeds that sprout later.
Jesus taught the public in pithy and memorable parables, so that people would remember them, discuss them, and try to figure out what they meant; and in this way the parables spread far beyond their original audience. Jesus deliberately withheld the meaning of the parables from the public to equip the disciples for successful evangelism later on. He explained the parables to the disciples, told them to wait for the proper time, and then shout from the housetops what they had heard in secret.
After the Resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit, the disciples did just that. The crowds, who were already familiar with Jesus’ parables, now heard the explanations—and that is how 3,000 converts were made on the first day of Christian evangelism.
You know, I have an image of you dressing Jesus in a suit and tie and Gucci loafers and indignantly shouting down all those who insist that He wore a robe and sandals.
It was 2000 years ago. It’s not now. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Most of the NT was written in Greek. Nobody spoke English. The early Christian Church was 98% illiterate and books each took up to six months’ labour to create. The Eucharist was 100% understood and participated in. The early Bishops instructed their flock, sometimes in very nasty tones. Put down your 21st century lens and look at the life of Christ in terms of His actual life, not your romanticized notions of it.
Your examples do not support predestination to hell.
If I recall properly, exactly none of them do.
Well what’s the point then?
If you don’t have a secret decoder ring, and the subordinate messager angel (aka the Reformed Holy Spirit - they don’t understand the Holy Spirit any better than they do St. Paul) jumps upon you out of a tree and beats your soul into Reformed shape, then you might as well be the very best sociopath that you can be.
You’re going to hell, so you might as well relax and enjoy it.
Only Christ is worthy - and we are redeemed only by His blood, the blood of the Lamb of God.
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four [and] twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four [and] twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. – Revelation 5
People expected religious leaders to speak in parables. The teachers who were better storytellers developed a larger following.
Parables make teachings easier to remember and apply.
Parables are more enduring than telling it like it is.
Parables allow you to make statements that would otherwise get you in trouble.
Parables have a time-release effect; they plant seeds that sprout later.
Jesus taught the public in pithy and memorable parables, so that people would remember them, discuss them, and try to figure out what they meant; and in this way the parables spread far beyond their original audience.
LOL. Exactly none of your explanations as to the reason for Jesus using parables is true or Scriptural. Read the text for yourself and find out why Jesus spoke in parables.
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." -- Mark 4:11-12"Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
These EXACT SAME WORDS are spoken by Jesus Christ in three of the four Gospels when He was asked "why do you speak in parables?"
The RCC is just making it up as it goes along, Mark. Read the Bible for yourself and learn the truth.
Again, many thanks for introducing me to the fine Westminster Confession of Faith.
“You have your history confused. Calvin was the first to articulate a separation of church and state, but not so that the church was subordinate to the state, just separate.”
He didn’t articulate that well. Do you know how the WCF came about?
INTRODUCTION
Historical Setting of the Confession
The Westminster Confession of Faith is one document of several commissioned by the English parliament during the English Civil War (1642-1649), in which armies raised by the parliament, in league with Scotland, battled forces loyal to the tyrannical King Charles I and his bishops. The Confession was commissioned from an assembly of 121 Puritan clergymen meeting in Westminster Abbey, called the Westminster Assembly, which was convened in 1643 for the purpose of drafting official documents for the reformation of the Church of England. This was done in fulfillment of a Solemn League and Covenant(1) made with the Scottish parliament and people in the same year, to the effect that the episcopal Anglican establishment, which for many years had harassed and persecuted the Presbyterian Scottish church, should be abolished even in England, and replaced with a Presbyterian establishment which would constantly adhere to Calvinistic standards of doctrine and worship. It was only under such terms that the Scots were willing to join the parliamentary forces in their war against the King.
Reception of the Confession in Britain.
In 1647 the completed Confession of Faith, which was entirely satisfactory to the Scottish commissioners present at the Assembly, was sent to the English parliament for ratification. It was returned to the Assembly by the House of Commons, which required the Assembly to present a copy of the Confession with proof texts from Scripture.(2) After a period of debate the Confession was then partly adopted by the English parliament as Articles of Christian Religion in 1648, with the omission of § 4 of chapter 20, §§ 4-6 of chapter 24, and all of chapters 30 and 31. The Westminster Confession was adopted entire by the General Assembly of the Scottish Church in 1647 and ratified by the Scottish parliament in 1649. These acts of the English and Scottish parliaments were then nullified at the restoration of the Anglican episcopacy together with the British monarchy in 1660. After the Revolution of 1688, in which the intolerable Roman Catholic King James II was replaced by William of Orange, the Scottish parliament again ratified the Confession without change in 1690, to which the royal sanction was promptly granted by the new King.
In 1658, just two years before the restoration of the monarchy, about 200 delegates from the Congregational churches of England gathered in the Savoy palace in London to compose a revision of the Confession in which the principles of congregational independence and legal toleration would replace the established Presbyterianism implicit in the Confession’s statements touching Church government and discipline. This revision, known as The Savoy Declaration,(3) prefixed a lengthy Preface, substantially altered chapters 25 and 26, deleted chapters 30 and 31, inserted a new chapter, “Of the Gospel,” and added a platform of Congregational polity titled “Of the Institution of Churches, and the Order Appointed in them by Jesus Christ.” The Savoy Declaration was designed to encourage agreement on important matters between churches; but, true to the nature of Congregational polity, it was not intended to be a legal or corporate instrument, as was the Westminster Confession.
Your Confession of Faith was sponsored, voted upon and ratified by the governments of England and Scotland. I thought that you guys rebelled against a state - sanctioned religion. And now it appears that the WCF was an act of Parliament. The Catholic Church was not an act of government, at least. You guys get better all the time.
What’s next? I’m waiting on pins and needles.
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.