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.
“”If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous”
John is writing in 1 John 2 to “ My little children” believers, who have an advocate, not the world.
LOL. More unattributed excerpts of unsourced snippets.
Proof is 2 Peter
2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.....2:17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
This passage says Jesus both bought them and that they are doomed.
Let's look at the verse again. I think you're misreading the pronouns...
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them "
Who's them? "Them" are those who believe the truth of Christ risen, who are being lied to by the false teachers.
"Them" are not the false teachers because if their sins had been paid for, their sins would be blotted out and God would remember them no more.
It is not at all logical nor Scriptural when Christ Himself tells us He doesn't pray for all the world but only for those whom the Father has given Him. He makes this point over and over.
If Christ has paid for a man's sins, that man stands acquitted before God and nothing needs to occur to effectuate this. It is a fait accompli, according to the will and purpose of God.
Is it your contention, then, that God does things that He is NOT pleased with? Does God do things He doesn't want to do? Does He do things against His will?
Naturally, you'll say "no". If so, then how do you explain why God reprobates men to hell before their demerits are evident - AND SIMULTANEOUSLY say that God desires all men to be saved?
Double-talk...
You cannot escape the logic of your own making. Either God does things against His will, sending undeserving creations to eternal punishment, OR your God really is sadistic and is pleased, or willingly, or whatever verb you desire, to create men specifically to populate hell, making Scripture a false book, since it specifically says God desires all men to be saved - how can this be if He WILLINGLY creates men to NOT be saved, without any consideration of demerits?
The WCF correctly recognizes that it was God's providence to choose the destinies of those He created.
Huh? And that makes God the author is sin. More double-talk. In one place, God is not the author of sin. Now, the WCF says God makes men whose destinies HE creates - to sin. Thus, God becomes the perfect creator of a being who can do nothing BUT sin...
This is repungant to common sense and Sacred Scriptures.
Regards
Yes, now read my post again. Again, your logic leads one to think that because Jesus prayed ONLY for Peter's faith, that He didn't care about the other apostles' faith. Jesus prayer is for Christian unity, not for the predestined vs. the reprobate.
Regards Regards
The point in both Calvin's and Luther's case is that by their actions they did not object to man having authority over scripture, so long as it was them.
The WCF is merely restating Scripture.
Who are you?
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" -- Romans 9:18-21"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Jesus death is sufficient to have saved all because the penalty of all sin was paid for. "If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the expiation for our sins, and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
All, however, don't accept.
Exactly. I am not sure where this elitist attitude comes from, since Christ seems to be open to ALL members of society, even the outcast, even the foreigner, even the sick and humble. But a Calvinist gets his hands on the Sacred Scripture and suddenly, God only cares about Calvinsts...
So much for the walls that Christ came to tear down. Calvin would have them re-built...
Regards
Not so. Since I believe infant baptism is Scriptural (although certainly not according to the RCC's idolatrous error of baptismal regeneration) I think both men's comments on baptism are Scriptural and correct.
The Anabaptists were part of the counter-Reformation and in very few ways resemble Reformed Baptists today.
It reads literally:
“the having bought them Master” denying.
Therefore, the “them” must refer to the false ones.
You responded: The WCF is merely restating Scripture. Romans 9:18-21
Romans 9-11 is clearly talking about nations, contrasting the Jews and the Gentiles. God calls which nation that He wills, in whichever order that He wills, granting that the Jews were HIS choice, BEFORE Israel could even merit it. NO ONE can question His choices for calling first the Jews, and then the Gentiles.
In Romans 11, the Scriptures tell us the reason why the Jews fell was THEIR disbelief (NOT God "making" them do it) - AND the Word states that IF they believe AGAIN, they can be reinstated as part of the olive tree. The choice is upon men, not God's intent on creating evil men. God is not the author of sin.
God desires all men to be saved. That all men are not is because men CHOOSE not to believe. See Romans 11. This is all over the place in Scriptures!
You are again misappropriating Scriptures down to the individual level. This says nothing about God reprobating individuals before their demerits.
Regards
Some are going to be lost. God knows that. There is nothing that will change that. Those things are set in stone.
However, the price paid would be sufficient for all sin. Therefore, none can say that they did not have an opportunity. Their free will resisted, and they rejected their only salvation.
As one old freeper used to suggest, if someone buys your family a ticket to Hawaii, and all use it except you, then that doesn’t mean the price was not paid.
The point was Luther rejected other’s interpretation of scripture.
Sola Scriptura is more rightly Mea Scriptura. Reformers merely replace one authority over scripture with their own.
I have one:
Institutes of the Christian Religion
by John Calvin
Book 1, Chapter 7: The testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the credibility of scripture depends on the judgement of the church.
Section 1. The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of God. Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church. Refutation, I. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man. II. It is insulting to the Holy Spirit. III. It establishes a tyranny in the Church. IV. It forms a mass of errors. V. It subverts conscience. VI. It exposes our faith to the scoffs of the profane.
Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt.
When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well deserves to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits than to what the extent of this topic requires.
A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz., that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the good will of men?
John Calvin
Your source please.
Gee Reggie. Good to see you back.
Smiley means joke. I actually added “- other than me!” on my own.
However, the reference for the point is Calvin’s history of persecution of those who disagreed with his ‘truth of God’.
Calvin became the new authority. Hence the “other than me!” It’s a joke or satire, relying on some truth for it’s humor.
See?
;)
I’m curious: Wouldn’t a Universalist be the ultimate anti-Calvinist?
On the other hand many of the arguments of Augustine, among other "Church Fathers" for instance would lead one to believe he would be accused of being a "Sola Scripture" proponent by a reasonable definition of Sola Scriptura rather than one concocted by those who wish to attack the idea.
I have read much, far from all, of the works of Augustine and cannot find a single instance where he says "Tradition", The Church", or anything else trumps Scripture. Can you?
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.