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.
What is it we are saved from if not the punishment due for our sin?
We don't have to pray for His will. "Thy will be done" is an affirmative statement, not hope or possibility, but a fact. It is our recognition of His sovereignty and our submission to Him (as Christians).
After the statement of submission, we petition God to give us our daily bread, to sustain us, to forgive us our sins and to lead us away from the evil one. Those are supplications, FK, and they are meaningful only if we believe that God guides us. If He pre-cast us into a given mold and given destiny, any prayer is a menaingless and empty, indeed pagan ritual. Given the Reformed theology of double predestination, any prayer is a mindless repetition, an empty ritual.
Isa 38:5 leaves no doubt that God intercedes in our lives and that everything is not pre-cast and stangnant.
Kosta: Prayer is not just praise, but supplication. You are asking for a favor.
FK: I agree. God tells us to bring our requests to Him.
How can you agree, FK, if you believe that everything is predetermined?!? What is the point of asking if nothing we ask will change what was cast before the foundations of the world? This is like praying in a movie theater for a specific end of a movie. It's superstition! Reformed theology says that everything is set and nothing can be changedfrom the way God designed it. If God is driving and we are just cattle in the back, you can pray all you want, the driver will take you where the driver wills. You can just sit back and moo.
(The whole idea that God would trat His children like cattle is the epitomy of Reformed self-debasing heresy).
However, remember that our own prayers as they are made are also a part of God's plan
That's because God wants us to come to Him. He doesn't force us to pray. The reformed idea that God forces some to be saved and forced others to be lost is contrary to a loving God. Love does not force. Rape is not love (sadly, some people may not understand that).
Why would God make His "elect" pray? For kicks and giggles? Because He can?
The Catholic and Orthodox theology is clearly a self-centered theology wherein God provides nothing more than the opporunity for salvation, but that man is entirely responsible for ensuring and perfecting his own salvation. Objectively it would appear that the Catholic does not believe a man is saved by Christ, but by his own efforts.
Carry on.
The Scriptures are clear that Jesus came to give His life for the world, anyone, the ungodly, sinners, and He invites all to come to Him. There is more joy over one repentent sinner in Heaven...
The outward call is to all men, and no one is prevented from believing. But the only men who do believe are those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit, according to God's will and not our own.
If Jesus paid the price for all men's sins, there would not be one sin on this earth unaccounted for and no one would be condemned to hell.
But Scripture tells us (and our own eyes confirm) that some men do suffer for their sins which obviously haven't been forgiven and thus, Christ did not die for those men or their sins would be erased and God would "remember them no more."
In this matter, I'll believe Christ...
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them... Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:9-10;20"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
If you can find one I'd be glad to comment on it.
I'd also be more than willing to comment on your understanding of Sola Scriptura, dogma or not.
I'm perfectly willing to accept Augustine's comment regarding supremacy of Scripture. (Please note it is not "dogma".)
"Whatever you hear from them [the Scriptures], let that be well received by you. Whatever is without them refuse, lest you wander in a cloud." (De Pastore, 11)
No doubt the OPC realizes every member of its church has several Bibles of their own at home.
Sadly, I cannot say that for most of the RCs I know.
“The Catholic and Orthodox theology is clearly a self-centered theology wherein God provides nothing more than the opporunity for salvation, but that man is entirely responsible for ensuring and perfecting his own salvation. Objectively it would appear that the Catholic does not believe a man is saved by Christ, but by his own efforts.”
Can’t speak to the Roman theology of salvation with any confidence, PM, but I can tell you that Orthodoxy’s theology of theosis really isn’t at all about being saved from or to or into anything. It is in part about being restored to.
“Carry on.”
As we have for 2000 years now! :)
“What is it we are saved from if not the punishment due for our sin?”
We aren’t saved “from” anything, F. By grace and our response to that grace which is freely available to all, the good and the evil, we can become like God, which is our original created purpose, lost in the Fall and restored by the Incarnation.
Thanks for your reply.
Is the “”Whatever you hear from them..” limited to direct quotes of scripture only? Or would preaching/teaching concerning scripture also be included in your view of sola scriptura?
By the way: Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
I believe you would agree sola scriptura qualifies as a principle and as incontrovertibly true. Is it on your own authority that removes it as dogma or that you do not recognize Luther or other Protestant denomination’s confessions as authorities?
Why did Christ die on the cross?
I believe you would agree sola scriptura qualifies as a principle and as incontrovertibly true.
Absolutely not. How is it possible for me to agree or disagree with an unstated principle? Put one in writing and I'll comment on it.
Is it on your own authority that removes it as dogma or that you do not recognize Luther or other Protestant denomination’s confessions as authorities?
Do you have a Masters in Non Sequiturism?
One more time, this time I am yelling:
THERE IS NO DOGMA OF SOLA SCRIPTURA!
If you are unwilling or unable to put in writing your understanding of Sola Scriptura I must assume you are playing games. Game time is over.
The term Sola Scripture to describe the dogma has been in use since the 1500s. It's foundational to Protestant theology. You could start with Luther and end with pretty much every current Protestant denomination to find their views on sola scriptura.
Here's one exosition:
Sola Scriptura from A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology".
I doubt many Protestants would agree with you that it doesn't exist.
“Why did Christ die on the cross?”
Read this:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-easter.html
Or in a nutshell, read my tagline.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. But they're not. Why is that?
Because some men have been given grace through faith in Jesus Christ and some men have not been given such grace.
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." -- Matthew 20:28
The teaching of Scripture is that the world was condemned until Christ came. Christ on the cross reconciled the sinful world to God. God loves the whole creation and sustains it every second of the day. Why did He not destroy the world after Adam's rebellion? He allowed it to continue and preserved it for the sake of the the unborn elect and for His Son, Jesus Christ.
But God does not love every man within creation. He didn't love Esau. Jesus didn't love Judas, who said it would have been better for Judas had he never been born.
God loves the creation because it is the work of His hands. Within that work are some men who will be born again by the Holy Spirit and receive God's unmerited grace which will display God's mercy throughout the heavens. And also within that work are some men who will not receive saving grace and thus will burn in hell, and this everlasting punishment for sin displays God's perfect judgment.
Christ's salvation is comprehensive. It affects everything in the world because it was designed to heal everything progressively until the final day of judgment. When Christ or Paul speaks of "the world" they are saying that Christ has saved the world from God's wrath, from destruction. But they are not referring to saving grace which God bestows on whom He willed from before the foundation of the world, and NOT for anything "good or evil which they might do" but for His good pleasure alone.
Thus all men benefit generally from Christ's death because the world itself is a better place because of Christ's life and death and resurrection.
"He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." -- Isaiah 27:6
But only God's elect benefit eternally by it.
"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" -- 2 Timothy 1:9
The world is being reconciled to God through the preaching of God's word and the work of the Holy Spirit. Christ's death was not in vain.
If Christ died to save all men, yet many still perish in their disbelief, then His death was partially in vain.
And that is impossible.
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." -- Acts 20:28
Christ has purchased the church of God, made up of the elect from all nations and races on earth. And all that has been purchased will be redeemed, according to the will and purpose and good pleasure of God, who "declared the end from the beginning."
Amen. What a lovely statement by Augustine.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." -- Proverbs 3:5-6"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
But the only time the word "dogma" is used by Hodge is when it pertains to the RCC, i.e. "Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican council."
Protestants don’t have dogmas I guess? Or do you use a different word for the same thing?
Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Seems perhaps if Catholics use a term, Protestants try not to.
I’m surprised the five Solas are in latin.
:)
I have used the terms “physical” and “spiritual” to explain my musings on the difference in aspect – but I rather like your terms “self centered” versus “God centered.”
The operative point is indeed “self.” One side’s understanding is cast from the physical aspect of an observer. The other side’s understanding removes self from the observation.
Both sides may have the best intentions – seeking to love God absolutely and as a distant second, seeking to love all neighbors unconditionally. (Matt 22)
Nevertheless the two aspects are opposite at the root because they see different things due to this "centering."
The sufficiency of the blood of Christ is the most important example, as you have suggested here. The self centered side would say the blood of Christ is not enough, that man has a part. The God centered side would say the blood of Christ is altogether sufficient, man is immaterial.
Here are some other examples of the differences which result from "centering" - IMHO, of course:
Succession from the apostles by physically laying on hands followed by the indwelling Spirit versus succession by the Spirit’s indwelling regardless of which hands if any were laid.
The good a man does in this life versus the good that God does through a man in this life.
Those who submitted to God’s will (Mary, Peter, Saints, etc.) versus that God accomplished His will using men of His choosing.
That accoutrements help in worship (attire, location, visual and physical aids such as rosaries, art, etc.) versus that accoutrements misdirect worship away from God and to the accoutrements themselves.
The gathering of the Scripture (councils, etc.) versus the Scriptures themselves.
Peter is the rock versus God is the Rock
Trust religious authorities versus trust God
Transubstantiation versus Who is being remembered
Sacraments versus grace
and so on…
Again my disclaimer – I personally eschew all the doctrines and traditions of men across the board, so I’m not speaking here for or against any of them.
Nevertheless, the leading I have in the Spirit is emphatically God-centered and thus my mantra (to which both sides would surely agree:)
To God be the glory!!!
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.