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 have read your verse and I have posted a verse to show that the only thing that was asenine is the verse you referenced.
My Dear Brother....Would you make this same statement if you inserted the Name of "Jesus" instead of the word "Him".
Thus it would read... The fact that the vast majority of them get run over and die doesn't seem to bother "Jesus" at all.
Please think deeply on this Dear Friend.
"and whoever lives and believes in me will never die" [John 11:26]
What Messiah? Jesus who?
The minute you begin answering those questions you are engaging in a theological discussion.
NOTE: I no longer post to Frumanchu, so this explains absence of his name in this reply.
Actually, the Jews (and Protestants) hold that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God just as Mohammad claimed the Koran was.
The Reformed further hold that all scripture was written by God by some mind-control mechanism (divine tractor beam of sorts), where God took over the minds of biblcal authors and used their hands to write the rest of the Bible (their view on inspiration), especially when ti comes to St. Paul.
Furthermore, many Protestants confuse the Word (Logos), with the "word of God" (bible), treating them as one and the same.
First, don't quote St. Paul to me, please, because he alone is not Christianity. Second, because the Protestant interpretation of St. Paul is inconsistent with the way the original Church understood it.
Third, do not offer me the Westminster Confession as any source of any truth. If the Reformed are true Christians they should be able to defend their beliefs based on the early Church, the Creed, as well as on the Gospels, through which all the rest of the New Testament and Old Testament attains full meaning, all of which are interconnected and inseparable.
Fourth, the Reformed Calvinist theology states that God has doubly pre-ordained everything, and that nothing can change His perfect Plan. That means no amount of prayer either. Which means this "movie" has an end and no amount of prayer will change it.
Fifth, if the bible tells us that we should pray (and biblical instances of prayer are always supplications for change of God's mind in the name of mercy) it is because God can and does change the course as we go along. We call that God's intercessions. Those don't change the big picture but they can save another soul and bring it to God.
So, not everything is predestined and set in stone. God's mercy changes and adds blessings (Isa 38:5) which result in changes in our lives.
I am sure that there will be persistent unbelievers who will call Jesus "Lord" and will claim to done great things in His name ... certainly once they see that the tide has turned against them.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?Mat 7:22
Are you saying this is spoken to atheists and those who actively reject Jesus as the Christ? I don't think so, brother! Jesus is clearly correcting those who only HEAR the Gospel and do not OBEY it. Faith without works is dead. This has nothing to do with pagans, but rather, the self-righteous who think they are already going to eternal glory just by hearing the Gospel.
I don't think that you considering the fulness of the statements made by Jesus here.
Those that Jesus addresses are those which claim to have done works ... and Jesus says ... I never knew you.
He doesn't say ... you have heard the gospel, but haven't produced enough works.
He says ... I never knew you.
This isn't about works.
If we trust Jesus to know what He is saying ... He can't be speaking to anyone who has ever been a believer, for He says ... I never knew you.
According to what Jesus says here, ... he can't be speaking to those who once believed, because He says ... I never knew you.
Those to whom He speaks may be self-righteous, but they have to be the self-righteous who have have never come to Jesus, because He says ... I never knew you.
And isn't this the group that Jesus had the most trouble with in every case ... the Pharisees, the Scribes, the experts in the Jewish law, ... who saw themselves as having their own righteousness, ... and who looked down their noses at Jesus ?
Isn't this the group who, today, is in the most peril of missing the salvation of God ... those who think that they have no need of Jesus ?
To obey the gospel ... is to believe it ... and to come to know Jesus.John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?Once we believe the gospel, Jesus knows us ... because we enter into fellowship with Him.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.He could never say unto us, his children ... I never knew you.
I stand ready!
The Eastern Orthodox Bible must be very short, considering it dismisses much of the OT and now all of Paul.
Christianity-lite.
do not offer me the Westminster Confession
I didn't. I offered you Scripture. But I can understand your getting the two confused since every word of the WCF is founded on God's word.
So, not everything is predestined and set in stone.
At the moment of creation, did God foreknow all that was to be, even the course corrections of men and their outcomes?
Or is He just making it up as He goes along?
"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been" -- Ecclesiastes 3:15"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 46:10
If I can’t post to you, please do me the same favor.
Sorry I had to post this to you inspite of your request for me not to post to you.
” Actually, the Jews (and Protestants) hold that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God just as Mohammad claimed the Koran was.
The Reformed further hold that all scripture was written by God by some mind-control mechanism (divine tractor beam of sorts), where God took over the minds of biblcal authors and used their hands to write the rest of the Bible (their view on inspiration), especially when ti comes to St. Paul.”
Really?????????????? Well, I suppose it has been worth spending so much time here as I see I can learn something everyday.
Kosta, with that thoroughly heretical view of scripture, we Orthodox can never find common ground with these people. +John Chrysostomos was right!
“If anyone believes that Christianity is a religion of revelation, then it strikes me as odd that people rely on themselves to decide what this revelation is.”
Everyone who reads the scriptures or hears a sermon interprets what they are hearing based on their experience, education and genetics. that’s why when you read a passage or hear a different sermon on the same passage, something new comes out of it, even hearing the same sermon over again.
Acts 2:6-8, “Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”
The words in the different languages of these people have different meaning and import just as we have been debating here on the eastern/western/Greek/English translations. they had to interpret their meaning.
Don't quote Isaiah because Isaiah never existed. And don't quote Solomon because Solomon never existed. And don't quote John because John was misquoted. And don't quote.... period.
You forgot the first five books of the Bible, and of course Joshua can’t be trusted, what with that walls of Jericho lie. About the only thing that can be trusted is portions of John 10, Luke 1 and Matthew 16. All else is suspect.
The Syriac Peshitta reads:
“Because God knew in advance that the Gentiles would be declared righteous through faith, He first preached to Abraham, as it is said in the Holy Scriptures, “In you shall all the gentiles be blessed.”
I’m inclined to agree with Gill on this passage that the Syriac has it right.
I apologize sincerely. I did not post directly TO you and didn’t see your name. I simply copied the “To” list. Censoring such “TO” lists every time I respond is tedius but I will do my best.
No worries, mate. If we could start over, I’ll try to be less testy.
FK, care to comment on this? I am getting the impression that there are "gradations" among the Reformed and that not all Reformed are equally Reformed so to say. Your stance has always been absolute and unquestionable assurance. How do you comment on the Reformed statement above, challenging your claim?
Actually, God's honest truth is that I fully intended to comment on Mark's original post when I came across it. Then I hit "view replies" and saw that Fru handled it perfectly so there was no need. :)
Every true believer from any Christian faith has the ability to know and be sure of his salvation. However, apprehending that knowledge is irrelevant to the FACT of the salvation. I would imagine that most Calvinists have apprehended that knowledge, and that most Apostolics have not. But this has nothing to do with how many Calvinists or Apostolics there are in Heaven. :) That was decided long before there WERE any Calvinists or Apostolics. :)
All this is to say, and as my recent conversation with Joe will confirm, that my position is that I say that I have assurance to the extent a human can. I know my heart and I know God's promises. Based on that knowledge, I claim to be saved. As Fru has said, therefore I deduce that I am of the elect. However, I do NOT claim Divine knowledge on the subject. Only God has the truth that can be called absolute.
Amen, great post.
To God be the glory!
apparently so.
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.