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.
It means a lot more things, not necessarily related...
By all accounts, Jericho's walls fell because of earthquake, and the Jews attributed it to God. They also attributed the moon turning red (blood) to divine anger, and other things as well. That's like attributing volcanic eruptions to God's wrath. It all sounds very pagan. Remember, the revelation was still incomplete.
This rational was always goofy to me. The scriptures are much clearer on this side of the fence.
Do you believe God would let us fall away from Him?
That's the way it has been since the fall. Our dependency is upon our Lord Jesus. He even told us, "Without me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) He must empower us. Seems pretty straight forward.
I am reminded of the nation of Israel when told to go into the Promise Land, they were disobedient and did not obey the Lord. The Lord then forbid them to go into the land and told them that they would walk in the desert for 40 years. They decided to run off into the Promise Land to try to capture it only to have the worst things happen to them. Without God's help and provision we can do nothing and that includes any righteous acts.
BTW-All things must come from the Father. Our Lord Jesus continuously tells us that the reason He was able to do His works was because of the Father. (John 8:28, John 5:30) As the Son is dependent on the Father, so we are dependent on the Son.
You responded: That's the way it has been since the fall.
For the fallen, Harley, not for those who place their trust in God. Clearly, God has justified the ungodly - even you, if you repent and accept Christ. Your theology ignores God's Word.
"And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness". Romans 4:5
Regards
“Christians in general, and Reformed Christians in particular, have forgotten that being God’s chosen people was never supposed to be easy”
Where in the world did you get this information? I guess you haven’t been reading about what is going on in the PCUSA, TEC or the battle Christian parents are going through in the government schools or home schooling for their faith, let alone in China and Muslim countries.
I have already explained that Paul's primary purpose was to preach the Gospel, as I quoted Scriptures (and you then told me that wasn't what the text stated...) He felt called to preach the Word. He admits that he baptized. Paul is merely saying that it is not important WHO baptized a person, since the work is God's, not Cephas, not Paul, not anyone else but the Spirit. Paul is not impressed with the Corinthian's naming of sects and who baptized who. That only leads to dissension.
If only our separated brothers would hear Paul on this...
Harley claims I wrote: Most Catholics hold...that God foresaw an individual's merits in determining selection.
Harley congratulates himself for his twisting of my words: Wow, that is some type of admission.
You are kidding, right? Apparently, you are having a difficult time interpreting what I write, again...How convenient that you put ellipses into my quote, which makes me say something that I did not say...
Here it is again. Try carefully to take in what I wrote:
Of course God has predestined individuals to the Church WITHOUT considering their merits. Most Catholics hold to that (although Molinarism, an acceptable alternative, says that God foresaw an individual's merits in determining selection.) posted 5:21PM 10/23/2007
This clearly says something other than what you try to make me say.
Unfortunately it is the wrong conclusion.
Please provide Scriptural evidence that backs up your opinions. Otherwise, they are meaningless to me.
I wrote :So that means that God doesn't love you???
Harley replied: That is what most non-Calvinists DON'T understand!!!
Listen, you told me that God does not love man. That's what you wrote. What can I say? Of course, I am going to question that, since the Bible says otherwise. As it is appearing more clear, Calvinists ignore God's Word, even if it means ignoring what is clearly written in the Scriptures.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
And when does our regeneration begin? When do we receive faith? Is it before or after we have faith?
Regeneration begins after baptism, when the Spirit comes to us.
"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Romans 6:4
"And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph 4:24
And where are your verses that man generates his own faith?
And where have I ever said that? Faith is a gift from God, a gift that we can choose to ignore or to accept.
God is sovereign yet His creatures can say no to Him.
That's God's Will. God desires men have free will. Thus, although God desires all men to be saved, God sees that some choose not to be saved. Based on viewing their demerits, God reprobates them - giving them over to His wrath, which is separation from His eternal love, their desire.
This rational was always goofy to me. The scriptures are much clearer on this side of the fence.
Sure. Your god would be a liar, then, since he wants all men to be saved while simultaneously ordaining and creating men to the eternal torture of hell, without seeing whether they deserve it or not, without even giving them a chance to DESIRE to be saved. You believe in God's Sovereignty, but won't allow Him to have it when His Word says something in black and white (such as "synergy" between God and man) and happens to be against your theology. God is simultaneously holy and the creator of sin. That's not goofy?
THAT rationale is pagan fate. You can have it.
Regards
We may be talking about two different things. I'm talking about our works so let me see if I can clarify. Those who are fallen can do nothing to please God. God makes us into new creatures. We do good things because Christ works through us. It is His work-not ours. All good things come from the Father.
"And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness". Romans 4:5
There are plenty of scriptures that tell us that God predestines His elect from before the Foundations. If no logical conclusion can then be drawn about the reprobate, then in Catholicism more or less of the actual elect will enter Heaven. It would mean there is no such thing as an unchangeable Book of Life. This is a completely different definition of who the elect even are than what we find in scripture.
In the field of predestination, God does not consider our merits before predestination. If otherwise, this could be considered an earning of heaven.
I see that as working backwards to repair an untenable position. If God predestines the elect, whether He looks at their merits or not, then that simply leaves the other group left.
Calvin mistakenly thought that God would work in the same way on reprobation. That God would NOT VIEW DEMERITS when considering reprobation. Thus, to Calvin, God, for "his own good pleasure", 'blindly' or 'randomly' condemns men to hell!
God has no need to look through the crystal ball at demerits. He decided to whom He was going to give saving grace at the beginning. He already knew "generally" what was going to happen to all those not receiving saving grace. It was over right then, without doing a sin by sin comparison based on the crystal ball.
However, this ignores key Scripture verses - God desires all men to be saved. There is no such parallel verse in the other direction, thus, reprobation and predestination CANNOT be parallel or analogous in all aspects.
We disagree on whether God is a colossal failure. For a parallel verse there are plenty. For example:
John 12:48 : There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
This must mean that God desires all the reprobate to not be saved. We know THAT because God always had within His full power the ability to save them. Yet He chose not to.
It seems to me you must have to think this, because they completed God’s purpose...and if they completed God’s purpose without a free will then how is that God does not own the sins these people commit?
Perhaps my pea brain misunderstands this,but I don’t see any love in God creating someone without any remote possibility for Salvation.
Basically, these people are demons in a human shell then!
“First of all, I need to reiterate that a Calvinist’s belief that they are elect is deduced from their assurance of their own salvation. Calvinists are certainly not the only group of Christians who believe they can know they are saved. ;)
Second, because knowledge of one’s own election is derived deductively by their own assurance of salvation, it follows necessarily that they would know they are not “heading off to everlasting hell.” It does not however follow that a lack of knowledge of their own election necessarily means they ARE “heading off to everlasting hell.” One need not KNOW they are elect in order to BE elect.
Third, Reformed churches do not target the elect only. By that I mean the focus of their evangelistic efforts is not finding the elect but rather preaching the Gospel to all men knowing that the Holy Spirit is the one responsible for regenerating and quickening the elect to faith. The focus of evangelism is to be faithful, not convincing.
Lastly, despite claims to the contrary, the Reformed faith teaches that whosoever will may come. That we differ in our understanding of who actually will come and why does not change that fact. We could go into several reasons why someone may want to join a Reformed church vs a Catholic church, or vice versa, but suffice it to say that the doctrine of election is only one part of the Reformed view as a whole. The Reformed church still preaches the sinfulness of man, his need for salvation, the person and work of Christ in providing the sole means of that salvation, and the need to be diligent as a disciple of Him who saves us.
Hopefully that clarifies a bit.”
It does, actually. All true Calvinists know that they are saved, and this comes from their indwelling knowledge that they are. Okay. Not only Calvinists are saved, there are others. Okay. Evangelism is a mechanical act, bereft of any real meaning. Okay.
A couple more questions if I may:
Why are some of the Reformed elect knowing of their own salvation and others not?
Why would someone that is not of the elect be required to be faithful to Him? How is that requirement enforced?
This is why we Catholics are very sceptical of the various versions of the Bible that are available.
When one cherry picks verse or even phrase, only a very few words are required to completely change the apparent meaning of those verses. This is a cause of the fractious Protestant movement (not the only one, but a significant one).
Interesting idea:
If a non elect confesses to belief in Jesus and believes in his heart that Jesus came to save him and the whole world, does that trump the doctrine of elect / non elect?
Any sincere confession and belief would be indication that person is one of the elect.
I don’t believe that the Quakers partake of the Lord’s Supper (I didn’t find mention of it at http://www.quaker.org). I also didn’t see it mentioned in the United Brethren site. Some of the more mystical Pentecostals don’t partake either.
Hey, brother, how's it going? Haven't heard from you in awhile. I hope all is well with you.
Regards
All is going fairly well for me. God is good.
Hope all is going well for you too.
Glad to see you're still in the mix.
I always thought that the only place that a Baptist didn’t recognize another Baptist was in the liquor store.
Joe: "Again, I have never gotten that from a Calvinist. You are the first who has told me that Calvinists subjectively believe they are saved/elected."
Joe, didn't we just get done talking about this on this thread? Remember when I said I was sure about my salvation, but I did NOT claim "Divine knowledge"? I didn't say objective or subjective, but from reading this conversation, Fru and I are talking about the identical thing. We consider what is in our own hearts, and we also consider whether the Bible is true. To the extent we can be sure of both of those, we can have assurance in our salvation. From there, assuming the Bible is still true, then we can deduce that we are of the elect.
Wonderful words and true to my belief and confession as well.
I guess that it all sounds too mystifyingly easy and very tempting in a way. You either believe that gird your loins and strap on your sandals for a long trip down the hard road and through the narrow gate; or you believe that the limo stops and you get in and that’s all.
That limo ride is mortifyingly contrary to everything that I have read in Scripture.
OK, well, that helps somewhat, and I see that our position is closer. Actually, I have read a bit about Calvin, and it seemed that he believed in the infusion of righteousness in nearly a Catholic sense. I wonder if you got that, or if Calvinism today has moved away from that idea and taken on the Lutheran view that man is STILL evil after justification and righteousness is an external imputation only. If you believe the former, it would naturally follow that man CAN do good when in Christ.
I agree with the first part of your statement. However, I would say that BECAUSE God has made us new creatures, when He works through us, WE PARTAKE in that work that Christ does through us. It has value because and only because we are in Christ. But it MUST be our work, as well. Otherwise, there is no point in sanctification. God desires for us to be saved - which means more than a bus ticket in the future. It also includes becoming like Christ. Thus, when God moves our will and desires to please Him through works of faith, we work together and they are OUR works as well as His works.
Synergy, God and man working together, is a biblical concept. It only becomes possible when God takes the initiative.
Faith has to come to us from the Father. Once it comes to us then it is our faith that is reckoned as righteousness.
Brother, you know I believe that, as well. I note you say "it is our faith that is reckoned as righteousness". Perhaps we are finally speaking on the same wavelength!
Regards
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.