Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
I a "most likely a Unitarian" (actual meaning - I know nothing) and am skeptical of any dogmatic teachings.
Neither the Orthodox Protestants or Catholics want me.
An Uber-Protestant.
;)
Of course not Reggie, you know as well as anyone that the Church believes Scripture is revealed truth and can not be "trumped" St. Augustine as a good Catholic would cleave to this teaching.
Nope; I’m agreeing that God literally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and killed the inhabitants.
Gen 19:
23
The sun was just rising over the earth as Lot arrived in Zoar;
24
at the same time the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (from the LORD out of heaven).
25
6 He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.
26
But Lot’s wife looked back, and she was turned into a pillar of salt.
27
Early the next morning Abraham went to the place where he had stood in the LORD’S presence.
28
7 As he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and the whole region of the Plain, he saw dense smoke over the land rising like fumes from a furnace.
29
Thus it came to pass: when God destroyed the Cities of the Plain, he was mindful of Abraham by sending Lot away from the upheaval by which God overthrew the cities where Lot had been living.
Physical destruction. It says nothing about their everlasting reward or punishment. It may seem likely that they were rewarded with everlasting hellfire, but it does not specifically say that.
“I’ve taken to ignoring most of your lengthier posts, Mark, primarily because they contain no Scriptural evidence for your goofy statements which day by day seem more and more smarmy and over-the-top. I guess that’s what comes from not having a sound argument based on God’s word. “
Why haven’t you answered my post on the WCF’s origin? Why are you following something that was commissioned, bought and paid for, voted on and ratified by the Parliaments of Great Britain and Scotland?
And if you were so Biblically based, why does the OPC site not either have a searchable Bible on its site, or at least endorse a version?
http://opc.org/bible.html says that:
Searchable Bible
The following links will carry you outside of the OPC website. We do not necessarily endorse everything found in the below sites, but we commend them as helpful for biblical research.
BibleGateway.com
Searchable ESV
You do have the Confession and Catechisms on your site.
Confession and Catechisms
When the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was formed in 1788, it adopted (with minor revisions) the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger and Shorter Catechisms (1647), as its secondary standards (the Bible itself being the only infallible rule of faith and practice). Officers in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church take a vow to “sincerely receive and adopt” these confessional documents “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.”
Preface
Westminster Confession of Faith
Larger Catechism
Shorter Catechism
The following PDF documents contain the Confession and Catechisms with full Scripture proofs (several are quite large; please wait for them to load):
Title page, contents and preface
Westminster Confession of Faith with Scripture proofs (658 KB)
Larger Catechism with Scripture proofs, part 1 (questions 1-115) (418 KB)
Larger Catechism with Scripture proofs, part 2 (questions 116-196) (379 KB)
Shorter Catechism with Scripture proofs
Scripture Index
Note: The quality hardbound book The Confession of Faith and Catechisms with Proof Texts ($12.00, postpaid to USA addresses) may be ordered by sending an email to ccesec@opc.org or by sending your order to the following address:
Committee on Christian Education
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Box P
Willow Grove, PA 19090-0920
See also the Modern English Study Version (MESV), a helpful paraphrase of the Confession of Faith, but not a part of our doctrinal Standards.
A table showing the American Revisions to the Confession of Faith is also available.
I don’t believe that you guys hold the Bible up as your truth and your light, as you proclaim. The Orthodox Presbyterian (born in 1936) website indicates differently. It indicates only that the most important documents that you possess are the documents that the government of Britain and Scotland put together. Hardly a Church of God.
The USCCB website, on the other hand has the following links across the top of its pages:
About Us Topics News Readings Movies Bible Catechism Bishops Dioceses Departments Publications
You see? We have the Bible right on the site, along with all the other information that is important to us. If the Bible is so important to you, then why don’t you have a version on your site?
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/
Old Testament
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
New Testament
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
You see, we are not ashamed to display the Bible free to all who would read it.
“No, the brake system has no will of its own, so it cannot be considered a secondary cause in the WCF sense. In your example, you would be the primary and only cause.”
Either God preordains all or He does not. If God preordains all, then any words to the contrary, are, well, contrary. If God makes me with a will to only do evil, and does not advance me the grace to change that will, then it is only God’s responsibility for me to do the evil that He made me to do.
“From a legal standpoint, this is not correct in the United States. In this country, unless there is a duty present (e.g. parent-child), no one is required to help a “victim”. Now, a few foreign countries DO have laws as you suggest, but not here.”
Aside from Massachussetts, it appears that you are correct about the United States.
“But as I said, in Apostolic theology, God somehow escapes this morality even when the victims are God’s own children. IOW, under your beliefs, God would be arrested even under U.S. law. :)”
It’s the difference between offered assistance and frogmarching the unknowingly selected elite.
It is easy to see how a unique invention of "Unanimous Consent Of The Fathers" developed.
Keep up the good work D-fendr. There is a place for you in the Apologist world.
You don’t think Calvin and Luther sought to maintain their own authority over others with different interpretations of scripture?
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."
“You’re going to hang your argument on how a 360-year-old document uses the word “pleased”? From the context, it seems pretty clear to me that “pleased” meant “what God wanted”. “
How about we replace the text and see the results?
CHAPTER 3
Of God’s Eternal Decree
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
7. The rest of mankind God wanted, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he wanted, 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 praise of his glorious justice.
CHAPTER 5
Of Providence
1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
3. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.
CHAPTER 6
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God wanted, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
5. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
CHAPTER 33
Of the Last Judgment
1. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
2. The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
It doesn’t really read any better, you know.
God always does get what He wants. The quibble that we have between us is the difference between frogmarching the elite out from a line of people headed for hell and making them love Him, and freely offering salvation to all who would accept it from Him and who would then freely love Him.
“The complete revelation is both Testaments together. I have no problem with the general concept of looking at one verse “in light of” another. We say that scripture interprets itself, so this practice is good and necessary. I just disagree with the approach of declaring one verse wrong if it appears to contradict with another verse that is “more favored”. The whole Bible is God’s inspired revelation to man. Therefore, there must be a reconciliation to all verses, without having to toss any of them. It sounds like you may have some sympathy for this position.”
More than sympathy, my friend. We believe it.
But that's not the same as "trumping" is it?
“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.”
I find myself in complete agreement with you.
Interesting. I thought there were several English language versions alone.
"Sola Scriptura is more rightly Mea Scriptura. Reformers merely replace one authority over scripture with their own."
What connection does your all inclusive "definition of Sola Scriptura" have to do with a few individuals?
Hi Reggie; where’ve you been? How have you been?
The NAB is the authorized Bible for use at Mass. I’d expect that the USCCB would make that available for believers and unbelievers alike. Kinda makes up for the supposed hiding of the Bibles in the pre Gutenberg years, yes?
There are several authorized Catholic versions, sure. But as the scholars have researched and more information has become available, the versions have gotten, we believe, more accurate, and closer to the original intent.
Post Scripture dogma certainly trumps Scripture does it not?
If not, please show me Scripture which supports the Bodily Assumption of Mary. (I'll not ask you to explain the "Scriptural Logic" which explains Papal Infallibility. That would be nasty.)
I would simply add that accepting something is a passive activity, not grounded in the receiver, whereas rejecting something is an active activity grounded in the will of the rejector.
For example, I can “receive” a military medal posthumously. And we speak of it in such terms: “So and so received the MOH which was presented to his wife.”
There is no act of the soldier; merely an act of the giver of the medal.
There are several authorized Catholic versions, sure. But as the scholars have researched and more information has become available, the versions have gotten, we believe, more accurate, and closer to the original intent.
I don't disagree with you except I believe there is no such thing as an absolutely "perfect" Bible, one with no translations errors whatsoever. Rather, I feel most Bibles are sufficiently accurate to be useful. (2 Timothy 3:)
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.