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 think you're misusing the concept of "trump".
1) Because the WCF is built on Scripture and not on the doctrines of men.
2) Nowhere in the WCF does it say money should be collected from around the world and sent to the church of England and Scotland.
Unlike Rome, which demanded then, and who knows now, that other countries support Rome and her misadventures.
Henry VIII was correct about that.
You see, we are not ashamed to display the Bible free to all who would read it.
"Display the Bible?" lol. Why not try reading it?
And next time, please don't post long and vacuous posts to me, or I'll be forced to ignore you again.
Does your reading problem involve comprehension or do you just not see clearly?
Amen. While I prefer the KJV, I know God's truth is able to be understood through a variety of languages and texts.
All liars are sinners, however, not all sinners are hellbound.
Under my view there is no paradox between freedom and grace. There is experiential freedom and there is God's sovereignty. Both are real and both matter. The difference is in who gets the credit among primary and secondary causes. I believe you share the credit in salvation (not 99%-1%, but more like 50%-50%), and I give it all to the primary cause.
For FK, I would like to say that in the formula above, it is correctly stated - BUT there is a caveat to add. God does EVERYTHING for man and salvation. But in another sense, man must respond to God's grace through faith working in love. These two things are not set against each other (like the above example pulling the wagon). They are on different metaphysical levels.
That indeed is a paradox. I don't see how the magic of metaphysics helps you here to separate the work since in your view NO ONE goes to Heaven without having done enough works in quality or quantity. That is the reality no matter how you categorize between this world and God's world. Therefore, God CANNOT do "everything" for man's salvation, as you claim. Over and over and over again, Apostolics have told me on this thread that Jesus made it POSSIBLE for man to finish the job. None of them has spoken about metaphysical levels and a new paradigm.
As St. Augustine said, we are only returning to God the gifts that He has given us. How can this be called "works salvation" when anything good we do is a result of God's will (as in Phil 2:12-13)? We cannot boast because we are ONLY able to do good while IN CHRIST.
This is all Reformed theology. So, I would have assumed that you disagree with it. :) I don't understand how you could agree to this given the view of free will that has been explained to me. It would seem to me that "anything good we do is a result of God's will" would be a clear violation of man's independent free will.
LOLOL.
Another theological point upon which we agree, Padre.
I agree. I think most Christians agree with what you wrote.
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.
Ah, that is very good. I'll have to remember that one!
Thanks
I think most admit that is what they do. I am sure that there are people out there who really try to read both points of view thoroughly. On some subjects, I really try to. But it is a lot of work, and sometimes, I will rely on someone else - or I sometimes get lazy and grasp a sentence that I see "proves" my point. Honestly, I don't think people come here for a dissertation on a particular subject, so that is the nature of the beast on these threads, I suppose. I have posted long works that I put a lot of time into. For example, I spent over a week researching the early use of the NT Deuterocanonicals by the Church Fathers. After I posted that extensive research, it was pretty much brushed aside by my opponent.
Ah well...Some people really are not interested in objective truth, but expressing their own opinions.
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 don't really want to go too much in that direction, because then we will be arguing that subject, as well! However, I do have some experience on this subject and what the Fathers write. There are several websites that I have links to that quote many different paragraphs of Fathers that supposedly believe in Sola Scriptura - and these paragraphs are a contradiction to that idea. If we take the Father's writing in context, we find that they believe Scripture is a critical, inspired work from which they draw their theology. And these same Fathers also express what Catholics would call apostolic tradition and holding to the rule of faith expressed by the Church (as opposed to their own personal opinions).
It is my personal opinion that one should look at what the Fathers write in a general way, rather than latching onto one or two sentences. Basil, for example, was adamant about Church Tradition WHILE appearing to hold Scriptures supreme - perhaps a Protestant could see "sola scriptura" there, but only if he looked at one or two sentences and ignore the rest. But when you put the two writings together, I think you'd come up with a different idea that is more in line with what the Catholic Church teaches today.
Of course, that is my opinion! I certainly have not read everything that Basil has written, just pieces here and there, but probably much more than the average Catholic or Protestant.
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?
Reggie, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that, either.
The Catechism states that Apostolic Tradition and Scriptures come from the same source, God. Neither "trumps" the other, although I would say that Scriptures holds a higher place in the Church. The Protestant principle that began with the Reformation was a needed correction. However, it went too far in refuting the Church's authority to infallibly define what the Scriptures mean by its various phrases. An infallible book is meaningless if no one can agree what it means. Thus, the positive Protestant principle turned into a negative that actually removed part of what the Scriptures had previously upheld.
We have hope that some day, people will realize this and return home.
Regards
You have merely proven my point when you lay out some sort of percentages. God does it all in one sense, and I do it all in a different sense. But without God, my "sense" is meaningless.
Consider the parable of the sower and the seed in Matthew and Luke's Gospel.
On one plane, without the seed, God's grace, NO FRUIT WILL GROW. You can water and hoe and kiss the dirt or whatever, and no fruit will grow without that seed. On the other hand, our response ALSO FULLY determines if that seed will grow. Is the dirt prepared? Is it thorny? Is it shallow? Or is it prepared and ready for the graces? In this sense, man is responsible, since man has free will and can focus on wordly goods, or give in to satan, OR open his heart to God and ALLOW GOD to bring the seed to fruitation. Naturally, this is a parable and not a perfect analogy of what happens. However, it is clear that nothing good comes from man alone - while in another sense, being open to God's Word is dependent upon man, because man CAN refuse this grace.
Note, in Matthew's version, Jesus gives a short saying from Isaiah on WHY He teaches in parables. Clearly, GOD IS NOT "BLINDING" men, but man is responsible for turning away, as the following shows. This is just a growing number of examples that shows your view as incompatible with Christ's teachings.
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Mat 13:15
They have closed their OWN eyes, because IF they opened them, they would see that they would require to live a moral life and answer to God. They do not WANT to be converted and healed.
I don't see how the magic of metaphysics helps you here to separate the work since in your view NO ONE goes to Heaven without having done enough works in quality or quantity
Wrong. When did I ever say that I must do "enough works" to enter heaven? I think I have clearly said enough on this subject. If you desire your ears to remain closed to what I say, that is your decision. God didn't make you that way...
Therefore, God CANNOT do "everything" for man's salvation, as you claim.
God provides the seed. Will fruit grow without the seed?
Over and over and over again, Apostolics have told me on this thread that Jesus made it POSSIBLE for man to finish the job. None of them has spoken about metaphysical levels and a new paradigm.
The first sentence is true, but in a broad way. Metaphysically, grace and man's nature operates at different levels, they are not analogous, nor are they similar. Without grace, man's nature can do nothing good. This grace enables man's nature, a recreated nature, as Paul writes, with the ability to freely obey. However, as Paul and John state, men CONTINUE to sin, thus, man STILL has the ability to follow the flesh which leads to death, or follow the Spirit, which leads to eternal life. It becomes clear that we can only serve one master. While receiving the Spirit enables us to obey God, it doesn't follow that we CANNOT GRIEVE the Spirit. And what does "grieving the Spirit" mean in Scriptures, FK?
I will quote one of the most beloved of Protestant Scriptures to show you my point:
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Eph 4:30
Written to Christians, Paul tells YOU. YOU MUST NOT grieve the Spirit. Apparently, man can grieve the Spirit. What happens to those who grieve God's Spirit?
But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Is 63:10.
Again, Paul warns them of falling into sin, because sin ruins our relationship with God. It can potentially turn us into an enemy of God.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Ez 18:23-27.
SAVE HIS LIFE! On one hand, we understand that the wicked cannot save their life without God's grace. On another level, the wicked is saving HIS LIFE! Clearly, the prophet, who speaks God's Word, was NOT a Calvinist. Tell me, how is it possible that God is "pleased" with sending men to hell WITHOUT seeing his demerits, but HERE, God wants wicked men to return to Him? Sounds a bit odd, FK? Sounds like more double-talk.
We have two Calvin birds hit with one stone. The righteous CAN fall, grieving the Holy Spirit, and can die - while God certainly does not CREATE wicked people. This verse clearly tells us that He AWAITS the wicked to TURN BACK TO HIM.
Scriptures tell us one thing. Calvin tells us something totally different.
Regards
Pray what? What are you praying for? For God to change His mind? For God to un-ordianed that which He ordianed before the foundations of the world, accoridng to your theology?
Prayer is not just praise, but supplication. You are asking for a favor. Whe yu rpay for others (no knowing who is elect and who isn't) you are asking God for soemthing on their behalf. That soemthing is soemthing God determined is due to them before your ever lived and will nto change no matter how much you pray.
However, if God has already predestined everything then your prayer will change nothing. Those who are destined to hell will go to hell and those destined to heaven will go to heaven with or without your prayer.
If you would prefer more specificity..
In the case of the Reformers Luther and Calvin, Sola Scriptura is more rightly Mea Scriptura - they merely replaced one authority for scriptural interpretation with their own.
Or more generality with more specificity...
Sola Scriptura is more rightly Mea Scriptura. Adherents merely replace one authority for scriptural interpretation with their own.
In short I don’t believe Sola Scriptura in the extreme sense is possible. Scripture does not interpret itself.
Oh, I wouldn't use the word "dismiss". :) We're still all Christians after all. I will say that I think that Orthodoxy is harder to pin down, so I could understand why a Protestant who was of the mind converting to Orthodoxy instead of Roman Catholicism. Less historical baggage.
I think a list of important differences between Orthodoxy and Reformed theology would have to start with justification by faith versus theosis. That has to be a big one. From there we could move on to things like original sin, general sin, grace, regeneration, election, atonement, God's sovereignty, and especially Biblical inerrancy and Biblical worth. (There are of course others.) So, while I do really respect that the Orthodox have been more consistent for a longer time, I do not equate that with necessarily being correct. As Kosta has indirectly noted, many generations of Jews were wrong for at least as long as the Orthodox believe they have been right. :)
I suppose it's another one for the list. :)
Reveled word of God, I think we can both agree on that. However I think you misunderstand what the Catechism is saying: reveled truth was always , except for the ten commandments, written by the hand of man and was usually originated in oral fashion:God speaking to man or God speaking through man. Some of this was written, some passed on as sacred Tradition. What was written is Scripture, but unlike the Koran, Christian Scripture is supported by the witness of the Church founded by Christ and shepherded by His apostles who passed on His teachings to their disciples. It is this witness with in the Church that gives us the confidence to know the Scriptures to be true. As St Augustine stated in his letter to Mani:
If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.
The Church cant "trump" Scripture nor can Sacred Tradition since they all derive form the same source.
C'mon, FK, now God, Who is a spirit, has a "face?" Are the Reformers really this literalistic and anthropomorphic and, frankly, childish in their reading of the Bible?
You were the one making an issue of the word "face", not me. I simply reported what the verse said. I know God is a spirit being, so this verse needs to be interpreted. My point was that I thought you were making a mountain out of a mole hill for focusing on the word in a literalistic sense. That's why I said to you "So, I wouldn't get too hung up on the face to face thing."
Face to face means face to face, FK. This is not expressed as an allegory. This is where the incomplete revelation comes into play.
I get it. You dismiss the majority of the OT. Message received already. I believe you. :) We, however, see it as God's Holy word.
Apparitions are not necessarily real images. God could have caused the Apostles to "see" Moses and Elijah when none was there.
So God was into holograms? :) It surprises me that one of your Twelve Great Feasts is dedicated to this, yet it sounds like the theology of what actually happened is not settled.
Matt 11:25-26 : 25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father , Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
So, the wisest and most learned among us are the ones in the dark? God is "anti-intellectual" I suppose.
I'm surprised you would argue with this. When you think of the world's intellectuals over the centuries, how many of them do you suppose were Christians? Not many, IMO, and this makes perfect sense. (Of course Christian intellectuals got a lot more ink early on, comparatively, but that is obviously no longer true today.) I liken it to the Biblical idea that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven. Rich men tend to love their money, and so have no room for God. Likewise, intellectuals tend to love their own intellects, and so have no room for God. Most of them are already their own gods. This would appear to match what Jesus is saying.
Well, if it's a trap then you've got me. It takes me no time at all to answer that of course He did. The existence of evil, the devil, and demons etc. was obviously part of God's plan according to scripture. (God did not say "Oh NO!" in shock when these things happened.) And since God ordains everything in His plan, He obviously willed these as well. None of this makes God the author of evil though. This was covered in the recent discussion of the WCF.
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.