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.
That means the LDS and JW have eternal life as well; it makes no difference how we know God or what theology (trinitarian or not) we subscribe to. Anything goes, as long as we proclaim Jesus as our Savior we are "saved."
Nah, you are forgetting a key difference between Reformers and at least the Latins, if not the Orthodox as well. We do NOT believe that a mere claim of belief makes one a true believer (if even temporarily). Our side believes that the Bible is clear that there are some who claim belief, but are in fact false believers. Therefore, to even have a chance at being true, any claim would have to be in the CORRECT Jesus, as He is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. This automatically leaves out the LDS and JWs as their sacred texts prove. They believe in some other Jesus, not the one you and I agree on.
Kosta, if everything-that-there-is-or-can-be is known PERFECTLY, then there can be ZERO deviations from it.
"One example would be the physical deterioration of our bodies. I don't think that would have happened, but for sin."
That may well be true. Mightn't it not also be true that physical death, while a "natural" result of sin, is allowed to occur as a benefice from God so that we need not exist in sin for an eternity in the flesh?
""Thus God did not create death, but we brought it upon ourselves out of an evil disposition. Nevertheless, He did not hinder the dissolution on account of the aforementioned causes, so that He would not make the infirmity immortal in us." +Basil the Great
In other words, is death an example of God's love? Certainly it was before the Incarnation. What about since?
"However, I would not take it so far as to say, for example, things like natural disasters are a result of man's sin. I see natural disasters as being the work of God's hand, for His own reasons."
Really? Might it not be better to say that these "evils" are imposed on us by the Evil One but allowed by God as "pedagogical punishments"? In this sense, sin distorts all of creation which was created perfect.
+Basil the Great puts it well:
" "Famines and droughts and floods are common plagues of cities and nations which check the excess of evil. Therefore, just as the physician is a benefactor even if he should cause pain or suffering to the body (for he strives with the disease, and not with the sufferer), so in the same manner God is good Who administers salvation to everyone through the means of particular chastisements. But you, not only do you not speak evilly of the physician who cuts some members, cauterizes others, and excises others again completely from the body, but you even give him money and address him as savior because he confines the disease to a small area before the infirmity can claim the whole body. However, when you see a city crushing its inhabitants in an earthquake, or a ship going down at sea with all hands, you do not shrink from wagging a blasphemous tongue against the true Physician and Savior."
and a few pages further on:
"And you may accept the phrase 'I kill and I will make to live' (Deut. 32:39) literally, if you wish, since fear edifies the more simple. 'I will smite and I will heal' (Deut. 32:39). It is profitable to also understand this phrase literally; for the smiting engenders fear, while the healing incites to love. It is permitted you, nonetheless, to attain to a loftier understanding of the utterance. I will slay through sin and make to live through righteousness. 'But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day' (II Cor. 4:16). Therefore, He does not slay one, and give life to another, but through the means which He slays, He gives life to a man, and He heals a man with that which He smites him, according to the proverb which says, 'For thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from death' (Prov. 23:14). So the flesh is chastised for the soul to be healed, and sin is put to death for righteousness to live.... When you hear 'There shall be no evil in a city which the Lord hath not wrought' (cf. Amos 3:6), understand by the noun 'evil' that the word intimates the tribulation brought upon sinners for the correction of offenses. For Scripture says, 'For I afflicted thee and straitened thee, to do good to thee' (cf. Deut. 8:3); so too is evil terminated before it spills out unhindered, as a strong dike or wall holds back a river.
"For these reasons, diseases of cities and nations, droughts, barrenness of the earth, and the more difficult conditions in the life of each, cut off the increase of wickedness. Thus, such evils come from God so as to uproot the true evils, for the tribulations of the body and all painful things from without have been devised for the restraining of sin. God, therefore, excises evil; never is evil from God.... The razing of cities, earthquakes and floods, the destruction of armies, shipwrecks and all catastrophes with many casualties which occur from earth or sea or air or fire or whatever cause, happen for the sobering of the survivors, because God chastises public evil with general scourges.
"The principal evil, therefore, which is sin, and which is especially worthy of the appellation of evil, depends upon our disposition; it depends upon us either to abstain from evil or to be in misery.
"Of the other evils, some are shown to be struggles for the proving of courage... while some are for the healing of sins... and some are for an example to make other men sober."
" K: Can one of the elect, by his very presence somewhere, change creation around him to its created state?
FK: I doubt it, but I may not be fully following you."
The Desert Fathers have left us countless stories of holy monastics around whom, by virtue of their advanced theosis, nature returned to a perfect and peaceful state, where the lion lays down with the lamb so to speak. many of these stories are told to Orthodox children to this very day. I was told them and I told them to my boys. Examples of these disruptions in the force of Evil in creation are evident especially at Mount Athos and at the great Monastery of St. Katherine at Sinai among other places. Just the other day another Freeper posted a part of a sermon by Bishop J.C. Ryle, a 19th century Anglican evangelical hierarch which recognized this. +Ryle is a sublimely Orthodox preacher, something which amazes me every time I read his sermons. Anyway, here's what he said:
"A zealous person in Christianity is preeminently a person of one thing. It is not enough to say that they are earnest, strong, uncompromising, meticulous, wholehearted, and fervent in spirit. They only see one thing, they care for one thing, they live for one thing, they are swallowed up in one thing; and that one thing is to please God. Whether they live, or whether they die-whether they are healthy, or whether they are sick-whether they are rich, or whether they are poor-whether they please man, or whether they give offense-whether the are thought wise, or whether they are thought foolish-whether they are accused, or whether they are praised-whether they get honor, or whether they get shame-for all this the zealous person cares nothing at all. They have a passion for one thing, and that one thing is to please God and to advance God’s glory. If they are consumed in the very burning of their passion for God, they don’t care-they are content. They feel that, like a candle, they were made to burn; and if they are consumed in the burning, then they have only done the work for which God has appointed them. Such a person will always find a sphere for their zeal. If they cannot work, or give money, or a man cannot preach, then they will cry out and sigh, and pray. Yes: if they are extremely poor, on a perpetual bed of sickness, they will make the activity of sin around him slow to a standstill, by continually interceding against it."
"I am still at a loss as to how you justify Perpetual Virginity, Bodily Assumption of Mary, and the Trinity."
Prove it using "near 2000 year old" writings.
You might need some help from the "Latins" in defining what is meant by “The Church Always and Everywhere has Believed”. They are good at that sort of thing.
As most Protestants are Trinitarian, I think Unitarians and Protestants, in general, both reject each other’s theology.
Actually, some Unitarians are Trinitarian. Since it is such an individual thing it is impossible to describe Unitarianism.
I believe in God and I believe:
1 Timothy 2:
[5] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
"...Another man-made "church" based on "sola."
Perpetual Virginity, Bodily Asumption, Trinity. Man made beliefs based on "Anti Scriptura".
How Old Is Your Church
And then they have the nerve to claim ownership of the material and post restrictions on it's usage without express approval.
Copyright in the pages, screens, text and images appearing at this site is owned by Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. or others as may be indicated in the textual presentation of the material. The information and materials contained at this site may not be copied, displayed, distributed, downloaded, licensed, modified, published, reposted, reproduced, reused, sold, transmitted, used to create a derivative work or otherwise used for public or commercial purposes without the express, written consent of EWTN.
PS. I am jerking your chain concerting EWTN's Terms of Usage. I have, and will use their material without permission. However; I will link to the site.
I get the idea that this is exactly what you believe - that God has already ordained what we will do, ordering us to use or not use His gifts of grace.
Sorry, no dice. That would be a great argument except for the fact that the term "imputed" IS used in the scriptures in relationship to our salvation. So you would need to explain the meaning of imputed righteousness from a Catholic perspective-a very difficult thing to do since Catholics don't believe in it.
Untrue, Harley. I have already said that Catholics believe in imputed righteousness - but it goes BEYOND that. That is not the end of the story. Not only does God CALL us righteous by "legal name", but He MAKES US righteous! Our inner self is now able to choose good because of the Spirit's abiding in us and our new nature. As I tried to say, you are giving half truths.
God looks at the entire span of a life.
Then how is man justified only once when the Bible says that in three instances in the NT, Abraham was DECLARED righteous? The simple solution is that man is not merely justified one time over the course of their lives. When we choose God, we are being justified, being sanctified, being saved...
Calvin certainly didn't believe that works came from individuals nor did he believe one could lose their salvation. That is rather indisputable.
And that is the sad thing, because Catholics do not believe that good works come solely from us, either. It is too bad that people choose not to listen to what the Catholic Church actually teaches, rather than what some Protestant preacher thinks that the Catholic Church teaches. Never have I seen ANYONE who is Catholic teach that our good works come solely from man, brother. Perhaps the idea of synergy bothers you, but THAT is not a "works salvation", because it ultimately and absolutely depends upon God.
Regards
“”I am still at a loss as to how you justify Perpetual Virginity, Bodily Assumption of Mary, and the Trinity.”
The first two are accounted for in the Protoevangelium of James which is early 2nd century. As for the Trinity, well, how about Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”? There’s more in the NT and there are types of the Trinity in the OT. Old enough for you?
I must tell you, however, that the guarantee to me that The Church has it right on Perpetual Virginity, The Assumption and the Trinity is quite frankly the uninterrupted witness of my own family for at least 1800 years. From generation to generation we have believed the same things as they have been passed down to us within the family and within the liturgical community of The Church where we have worshiped God in a virtually identical way for those 1800 years. Lex orandi, lex credendi, Old R. I sincerely doubt that you can understand what it is to know, thoroughly and in every fiber of the body, every single Sunday, that I am worshiping our Triune God with the “Right Praise”, in an Orthodox manner, and for all intents and purposes in the same manner and in the same words as the Liturgy was celebrated in Jerusalem and Antioch and Athens and Corinth and Rome in the years after the Resurrection. And its not just me, Old R. Kosta shares the same religious and familial experience. NYer hears the words of the consecration in the very language Christ spoke them in at Maronite Liturgies. The Latins here witness the continuing, nearly 2000 year old Roman Rite of the Divine Liturgy. That’s my assurance. I know what The Church always and everywhere has believed.
This is the Faith of the Apostles,
this is the Faith of the Fathers,
this is the Faith of the Orthodox,
this is the Faith which has established the Universe.
I'm very glad I did manage to get close to accurate at least.
Would it be accurate also to say that you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus?
“Would it be accurate also to say that you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus?”
Are Unitarians also Arians?
I don’t believe that would be accurate. I believe Arianism would elevate Jesus higher than most or many Unitarians, that they would see Jesus as more human than Arius would.
However, as OR points out, Unitarians are quite varied; as I described somewhat jokingly earlier, they are “dogmatically non-dogmatic”. So it’s difficult to ascribe a set of beliefs to them as a whole - other than Uni.. nonTrinitarian. From there I believe it would be accurate to say the theological formulations are “loose and open”.
Even further afield from Orthodox theology you reach the Unitarian Universalists.
“Even further afield from Orthodox theology you reach the Unitarian Universalists.”
There’s such a group in the next town over from us. Mostly a sort of mixture of folks, a big GLBTG contingent with some Mohammedans and Bahais. I have no idea what they believe. Nice people, but odd, odd, odd.
As for the Trinity, well, how about Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”?
Father and Son = 2.
"I must tell you, however, that the guarantee to me that The Church has it right on Perpetual Virginity, The Assumption and the Trinity is quite frankly the uninterrupted witness of my own family for at least 1800 years...
I know what The Church always and everywhere has believed.
This is the Faith of the Apostles,
this is the Faith of the Fathers,
this is the Faith of the Orthodox,
this is the Faith which has established the Universe."
Words, words, words but no documentation, no proof.
Sorry, your words have no meaning whatsoever except to state your belief. That's fine and I don't doubt that there is a place in God's home if you are sincere and act accordingly.
You, however, do not speak for me and hundreds of millions of others.
I believe UUs accept pagan, polytheists even atheists in their congregation. It sounds absurd for a “church” but...
I think it would be more accurately described as philosophy or “meaning of life” club. About 200,000 members officially last I remember.
So what?
“the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”?
Father and Son = 2.”
Surely when you were in school, so very long ago, Father, Son and Holy Spirit = 3.
“Words, words, words but no documentation, no proof.”
Well those last words are from the final statement of the 7th Ecumenical Council, but I suspect that won’t impress you.
Old R, there is little point in us continuing this. +John Chrysostomos, a man experienced in dealing with heresy and heretics recommended:
“By ‘contentions,’ he means, with heretics, in which he would not have us labor to no purpose, where nothing is to be gained, for they end in nothing. For when a man is perverted and predetermined not to change his mind, whatever may happen, why shouldest thou labor in vain, sowing upon a rock, when thou shouldest spend thy honorable toil upon thy own people, in discoursing with them upon almsgiving and every other virtue?
How then does he elsewhere say, “If God peradventure will give them repentance” (2 Tim. ii.25); but here, “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself”? In the former passage he speaks of the correction of those of whom he had hope, and who had simply made opposition. But when he is known and manifest to all, why dost thou contend in vain? why dost thou beat the air? What means, “being condemned of himself”? Because he cannot say that no one has told him, no one admonished him; since therefore after admonition he continues the same, he is self-condemned.”
I have many failings. One of them is not heeding the admonitions of saints. If you have any doubts at all as to the futility of this discussion, take a look at this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1917242/posts
You can't comment on it cause its a caucus thread, but it will give you an idea of the sort of things we believe. I doubt we have any religious common ground at all.
Then I’m confused. You are nonTrinitarian, yes? Are you differentiating between “divine” and “God”?
I think I may be beginning to see: God the Father, and the Son = 2. Two Gods?
+ Holy Spirit = 3? Or...?
She did have an uncle who owned the best Deli on the North Shore of Massachusetts. I still miss that place. (I'd still go but I now live too far away) :)
I sincerely hope my odd, odd, odd characterization of her family, and by implication, Greek Orthodox people doesn't sound patronizing.
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.