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.
Amen.
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:9-10"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Men have always been telling God who He is and isn't rather than listening to Him tell us exactly who He is -- the one who declared "the end from the beginning."
"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been" -- Ecclesiastes 3:15
We can't go wrong by stating God's sovereignty too often, considering the world conspires to erase it entirely and replace it with men's "good choices" and "free will" righteousness.
Carry on. It is so much easier to attack your invented straw man than it is to attack a nuanced argument.
I thought that you might either be frightened of or bored by a list of the Books of the Bible. It appears that I am correct.
“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.”
Snicker. We do not necessarily endorse everything on those sites? Seems rather cowardly to me for a brave new (1936) religion that prides itself on its Biblical foundations. Which Bible does the OPC read? If they recommend the KJV, then why not host an online version?
The WCF and the Catechisms are acts of a foreign government. Signed into law. That ranks with the craziest theological processes that I have ever heard of. Foreign governments? At least the Mormons stayed in the private sector and didn’t have the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids of that day making deals in committee about the wording. And they are as Biblically based as the WCF.
And the ESV as a potential Bible? Have you read the criticisms of it? Do you understand its variance from the KJV? You guys get better and better the closer I look.
“I know of no Calvinists who claim that God only cares about Calvinists.”
Really? I know that the Calvinists all believe that God loves them because He pulled their names out of the Bingo wheel, but what about the bulk of humanity?
The WCF says that:
“7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, 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.”
So God loves those that he sends to everlasting hellfire?
As an example could you show the "revealed word of God" which led to the dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary? (Scriptural reference would be nice.) :)
Okay, I can accept that, as long as there is the understanding that there is a whole list of commands and directives that the believer needs to follow - most of Jesus’ preaching and teaching told the people what they needed to do as well.
The trouble is that there are some differences about Bibles, some major, some minor. If there is no completely objective source (stone tablets from God, say), then who is to say that THIS particular version in THIS particular verse says EXACTLY this and means EXACTLY this?
We believe that that authority is the Catholic Church, left to us by Jesus. You either have that or you have anybody coming up with anything with equal amount of authority.
And just how many authorized versions of the Bible exist within the Catholic Church?
My oldest just turned 18. Maybe the good Lord will have me stop at 6, it’s up to Him.
I’m aware of:
Douay-Rheims, Ignatius / RSV, Navarre Bible and the New American (NAB)
as authorized Catholic versions.
That's pretty clear, isn't it?
So we need to rethink what "the world" means within the context it's used throughout Scripture.
As the link said which I posted, if you deny limited atonement, you are actually denying God's election of His family due to His good pleasure, and thus you are once again returning salvation to some sort of foreseen "good works" by men.
It's no coincidence the first thing Arminius did upon his return from Rome was to write against particular redemption. And that is because if God does not ordain His family for His own reasons but because of men's good works and their own ability to believe in Christ, then of course the church in Rome has a duty to dole out more of this type of work-based righteousness.
You're standing with Rome on this one, and against Luther and Calvin and Augustine and Paul and every Reformer for the past 500 years.
But most of all, you're standing against Jesus Christ who clearly says He does NOT pray for the entire world, but only for those whom the Father has given Him (John 17).
It's always strange to think Christians do not believe this. I can understand non-Christians speaking against a particular redemption. But for Christians to go along with some half-baked idea that God doesn't love them with a particular love, hasn't carved their names in stone from eternity in His Book of Life, didn't ordain their salvation by Christ "before they could do anything good or evil" is actually going along with the world's denial of God and His omnipotence and His very particular, individual, specific love for the members of His family.
Everyone does NOT have the same ability and desire to love Him. The ability and desire to love God come from God and not from ourselves.
Please read the following essay by John Piper...
There are several problems here. I will only mention one. And I dwell on this because, if this is what you believe, then you are missing out on the depths of covenant love that God has for you in Christ by understanding it to be the same as the love he has for those who reject him. And you are, in one serious way, "neglecting your great salvation," which, we saw in Hebrews 2:3, we must not do. There is a greatness about being loved with Calvary love that you will never know if you believe that those in hell were loved and died-for the same way you were..." "...In other words, it's unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and not to know what Jesus really accomplished by dying. Suppose you say to me, "I believe that Jesus died for everyone," and I respond, "Then why is not everyone saved?" Your answer probably would be, "Because you have to receive the gift of salvation; you have to believe in Christ in order for his death to count for you." I agree, but then I say, "So you believe that Christ died for people who reject him and go to hell in the same way that he died for those who accept him and go to heaven?" You say, "Yes, the difference is the faith of those who go to heaven. Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus."
And for me, I know this is true because I experienced both loves -- the love I felt from God when I thought I was loved the same way God loved Judas, and then when I experienced the love of God for His own family -- created, named, ordained and saved from before the foundation of the world, according to His will, and not my own.
And every person on the planet can feel this love, too, if they are so inclined; if they are "called according to His purpose."
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." -- John 15:16
Do you stand with the Romanists here, too, and say Christ is speaking only to His apostles and not to you and me in particular?
That's the definition of "limited atonement."
And "those wo come to Him" are those whom the Father has given Christ to bring home, designated "not for anything good or evil that they may have done or will do," but according to His election alone.
Christ's sacrifice could have atoned for the sins of all the world, but in fact, His sacrifice atoned for the sins of His elect.
The sins of the reprobate remain, always and forever, unatoned for, unforgiven and stand in conviction of all those who were not numbered among His family by God from before the foundation of the world.
God elects; Christ redeems; the Holy Spirit sanctifies; man glorifies and rejoices.
“If Christ actually atoned for “all the sins of every man in the entire world,”
For all people with the gift of “short attention” span, the original observation was that Jesus intercedes only for believers; the elect. It had nothing to do with the sufficiency/efficiency of His sacrifice. Now I know it’s Friday and xzins forgot once again what that means to neeners, but let’s focus on the question.
There, I feel so much better!!
Get the difference?
(((snicker right back)))
Now that you've listed the books of the Bible, try reading them.
You post like a young man. 8~)
As Frumanchu said, God loves His elect, His family whom He named and numbered from before the foundation of the world, who are found in every nation and race on earth and reside within all churches where the word of God is preached in truth and light (some more than others.)
The conclusion you're defending is a non-sequitor. It may be properly said that most Calvinists believe God only loves the elect, but given the fact that (with the exception of some "hyper-calvinists") we don't believe only Calvinists are elect, it pretty much renders the conclusion you're defending a fallacy.
I must agree with Frumanchu.
Calvinists don’t care where God finds the elect. They are not necessarily Calvinists, although we would hope that most Calvinists are.
I would suggest that this verse needs to be examined in relationship with Isaiah 63 which states:
From His point of view He is the Savior of the whole world just as He claimed He was the Savior of Israel as He brought them out of Egypt. But those people perished. I believe John (and Peter's "..even denying the Master who bought them...") are talking about how God looks at man, but it isn't all inclusive. Christ blood only atones for those who He returns to His inheritance. Isaiah 63 shows that God considers Himself the Savior of even those who are perishing.
If you accept that as the definition of limited atonement, then why are you arguing with me? :>)
Sufficient/efficient is the original point I made.
Not that I could be accused on a Friday of instructing anyone to go back and check my original comments.
By the definition of God, the sacrifice of God must be sufficient to cover every sin.....every anything.
Your scholarship on Arminius is unconvincing propaganda from an era when people were killed over these things.
I must admit that I certainly didn't expect to hear YOU say THAT!!
What do you mean by it????
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.