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.
The question, Kosta, is "Did God know perfectly what each person would choose?"
If He did, then there will be no deviations from it.
If He did not, then God is not omniscient.
I never said “Jesus” said that.
It is consistent with what is taught throughout Scripture.
We can't answer that question without stuffing God into our finite conceptual box of either or world. Just as with certainty we cannot say whether light is a particle or a wave because it exhibits the characteristics of both. Our "working model" of God is too limited to speak of in any degree of certainty. We Orthodox call it a divine mystery.
God's plan is to save mankind. We know that much. How mankind came to be in need of salvation is a different story. Did Adam have to sin? Did God make him sin? Did God create Adam knowing that he will sin or did God create Adam wanting him to sin?
The choice is ours and God knows our choices. He doesn't make our choices. He created us. He did not pre-program us.
The problem with God predestining our choices is that He would be the cause of our evil as well. The transcendental God knows how we will end up because for Him time is not a developing story. He sees us at the Final Judgment and at this moment as well—all at the same "time."
He knows my choices, I am sure, but He does not have to "wait" and see what happens with me. Yet, I can assure you that He is not typing these words by forcing me to type them. Nor is He forcing me to go to church... :)
Jesus never claimed to be God. He is the Divine Son of God.
The Holy Spirit and God are one.
How can I distinguish between the two "and's"? It is a mystery.
"Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me." *
Now, if you don't mind, I am through with that line of questioning.
* Legend only. Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms.
I do; however, agree that you have an excellent point concerning the Schism of 1054.
Besides, it's a historical certainty.
Ha!
Absolutely. Righteousness is a one point-in-time occurrence. Sanctification is an on-going process.
Now, if all works are actually done by Christ through us, what role do we play?
I think this would be obvious to a Catholic. Our role is exactly like Mary's. We are to say, "Behold the servant of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word." Mary played no part in her work except submission. Likewise we play no part in our work except submission.
When Catholics or Protestants talk about going out to the world and win people for God, they certainly are not saying that they do it WITHOUT God. That is just the way we speak.
I would agree with you that most people, if you sat them down and question them enough probably believe this. But there is a subtle arrogance underlying our attitude and actions. James points this out when he wrote to Christians saying:
Where? I would like to know where that is mentioned in the New Testament.
Regards
Thanks for your reply.
No gotcha. Usually when someone “recognizes the divinity of Christ” it means they believe He is God. So clarification is needed to distinguish.
Those who say they don’t believe Jesus to be divine usually mean He is not God. So, again, it’s a different theology. I think it would be a common agreement among Protestants and Catholics that this wouldn’t be considered “Christian” theology.
“God and the Holy Spirit are one” - without Jesus - is certainly nonTrinitarian. Dunno if there is a Dinitarianism. :)
Anyway your differences with Christianity - speaking here of Protestantism and Catholicism - are great, all the way down to the nature of Christ.
What is perplexing is with such a great disagreement with Christianity on its core belief, why bother with differences on sola scriptura, the Assumption and other, taken in perspective, minor points?
I believe the two terms are synonymous. This is based on the idea that man actually is being transformed and being made righteous/sanctified. With that understanding, would you agree?
I think this would be obvious to a Catholic. Our role is exactly like Mary's. We are to say, "Behold the servant of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word." Mary played no part in her work except submission. Likewise we play no part in our work except submission.
Yes, there is a lot of truth to what you say. God instills within us the desire to submit, so even that is not our OWN work.
But there is a subtle arrogance underlying our attitude and actions.
You present one of the positive principles of the Reformation! Yes, I said it!
There was an undercurrent of "works salvation" in the Catholic Church, and a corrective was needed. We should take a more balanced approach, however, so as not to destroy the original reformers' intent. Correction does not have to lead to dissension or dissolving of the Church.
You seem to over-emphasize God's work and under-emphasize our response. I believe the Council of Trent spoke against this. You are correct to call to attention that it is God who works within us, but sometimes, I think you should consider being more balanced, recognizing that man is a secondary cause for his actions - otherwise, man is not properly being judged. We are responsible for using God's graces at some level. Thus, I think we should consider that Scriptures appeal to both ideas.
Regards
I'm afraid the answer is "yes". With all due respect, this is my assessment of Jesus' priorities under the Roman Catholic faith. Jesus either has the power to save unilaterally, or He does not. If He does have that power, but chooses not to use it in favor of allowing man to choose whether to save himself by cooperating, then my supposition is accurate. That is, that it is more important to Jesus to let His beloved children die than for Him to do what any loving human parent would do, save the child's life in spite of the child's "suicidal" wishes.
If He does not have that power, then He is not omnipotent.
The issue is that God knows everything. Therefore, God knew with absolute certainty that Adam would sin. Knowing that, God created anyway.
Adam sinning, once creation was initiated, was an absolute certainty. If God is omniscient, there is no escaping this logic. It is certain.
The choices of every human, because God made humans that way, are based on the individual's own will. ALSO, As you said, God's knowing is not the same as God's forcing. Therefore the choices are foreknown by God. They are not forced choices in the sense that God was an accessory to sin. They are, however, predetermined choices in that this world was created with total knowledge of all that would transpire.
Therefore, God is not a participant in sin.
You are presuming to know the mind and ways of God. God could just as easily have devised creation with an infinite number of possibilities. Your way of thinking is forcing God to one choice, one solution. In your paradigm, God's plan becomes a necessity to which God Himself becomes a subject. That makes His plan higher than God.
We know that God gave man the ability to choose. Man made a fatal choice. God offered Adam a chance to repent. If He wanted Adam to fail, why did He even give him a choice? Or offer him to repent?
God revealed to us that He desires that all men be saved. His plan is an offer to all mankind to be restored to our original state. That much was revealed. The rest is a profound mystery.
Some Christians believe that God's Holy word is free from any error, and every word in it is what God intended for His revelation to be. This includes the initially intended specifically targeted audiences, as well as a measure of the human author's personality. We believe no one section of God's revealed word is any more inspired than another, since it is impossible to improve upon perfection.
Now other Christians believe that God's inspired Holy word is riddled with human errors, especially concerning fact. Such Christians, presumably, rely on the say so of wholly uninspired men to validate which words of the inspired men should be taken seriously concerning the truth. Perhaps such Christians also rely on their own reasonings, since I'm sure there isn't a consensus patrum on the truth of all scriptures.
I find this curious. Remember, you are mocking me (as are others in some of the responses to your post) because I believe that the Bible is true to such a point that no human error could have entered it. I say that the scriptures are exactly as our Holy and omnipotent God wanted them. No compromises. And for this I get mocked? How flawed should I say the Bible is for you to think I'm being reasonable? :) Amazing.
Either what the human authors wrote down were God's words, OR, what they wrote down were their own words with some suggestions on the side from God, or at least what they perceived were His suggestions. They were fallible men of course, so who knows if they got it right. I remember that you have said that even some of the OT authors misinterpreted what God inspired them to write. We CAN be sure, though, that scripture itself claims that they were the actual words of God:
1 Cor 2:12-13 : 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
2 Tim 3:16-17 : 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
One can argue that this only applies to the OT, but then you are left with saying that all the errors are in the NT. I doubt you want to go there. :) Perhaps you have a definition of "God-breathed" that includes human error? Would God's breath contain error?
2 Peter 1:21 : For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. KJV
Matt 5:17-18 : 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. KJV
Here, either Jesus validates the varied opinions of the OT authors, or He makes a statement that the OT is the perfect word of God.
Finally, it is ridiculous to keep pressing this mind control nonsense. With mind control, in the word picture YOU'RE portraying, the person wouldn't have any idea what he was writing. Do you seriously think that's what we believe? We obviously cannot because the Apostles obviously taught what they wrote, even before they wrote it. So, mind control makes no sense.
Again, please remember what you're fighting for: that corruptible human influence has found its way into the Bible. If all Apostolics believed that it would make sense to me because of course only the men of the Church could bail out the otherwise helpless laity. With an error-filled Bible, no one would have any chance to know the truth. It would be yet another technique to raise man up by putting God (and His word) down.
Actually, I thought this was an especially productive go around for us. :) You learned more about our beliefs concerning assurance, and I learned more about your beliefs concerning what "elect" means. However, I fully respect your position and pray that other issues will present themselves in which we might have meaningful exchanges. God bless.
I am simply affirming the bible, and the historic Christian truth that God is omniscient.
If God is omniscient, then He knows everything with zero exceptions.
God did not want Adam to fail, but God knew that Adam would fail. God carried through with the plan because the Creation declares the Glory of God. In particular, it declares the glory of His grace in Jesus Christ, the central event of all that there is.
It is not possible for God’s decisions to subordinate God. Since God is all-knowing, God made an all-knowing decision to initiate THIS creation, as opposed to a different creation.
It is proceeding according to plan.
That's the meaning of prayer in the languages of the Bible: asking for mercy, a divine favor. Again, you are confusing prayer with worship (giving praise, adoration), although adoration usually precedes prayer.
First off, I don't know how you split adoration FROM prayer. Jesus certainly did NOT do that when He taught us how to PRAY. Within THAT teaching was worship and adoration, along with asking for stuff. Anyway, did you read the passage from Calvin I posted? In it, he explained many other benefits of prayer besides getting stuff. That these exist, Calvin gave the example of Elijah. In 1 Kings 18, there had been a three year drought/famine in Samaria. We are told:
1 Kings 18:1 : After a long time, in the third year, the word of the Lord came to Elijah: "Go and present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the land."
Now, we both know what it means here: "the word of the Lord came to Elijah". That's money in the bank to a righteous man. No need to worry about it, if God said it, it will happen. In fact, by verse 15 we know that Elijah agrees, since he sends Obadiah to announce Elijah's coming to Ahab. Obviously this would have meant Elijah's death, EXCEPT that he believed that he should follow the word of the Lord. So now we know for sure what Elijah thought of the word of the Lord.
Now, fast forward through what I still think is one of the funniest scenes in the whole Bible, the God-off between Elijah and Ahab's Baal prophets, and then we see this:
1 Kings 18:41-44 : 41 And Elijah said to Ahab, "Go, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy rain." 42 So Ahab went off to eat and drink, but Elijah climbed to the top of Carmel, bent down to the ground and put his face between his knees. 43 "Go and look toward the sea," he told his servant. And he went up and looked. "There is nothing there," he said. Seven times Elijah said, "Go back." 44 The seventh time the servant reported, "A cloud as small as a man's hand is rising from the sea." So Elijah said, "Go and tell Ahab, 'Hitch up your chariot and go down before the rain stops you.'"
OK, why did Elijah do this??? Why would Elijah pray about the rain (we know this by what he told the servant) after clearly hearing the word of the Lord and trusting it enough to bet his life on it? Was it because he lost his faith somehow after he had just witnessed God's miracle, PROVING God true? Of course not. Calvin uses this example to show that Elijah KNEW that it was still good for him to pray even KNOWING that God had already promised to HIM that it was going to rain. Elijah KNEW that there is more to prayer than just getting stuff.
When King Jehoshaphat was attacked and he sought the Lord, God told King Jehoshaphat that he wouldn't have to lift a finger, God would fight for Him. Same way with Gideon. And numerous other people in scripture. He makes ax heads float, part seas, and keep the oil running when it should have run out all without us lifting a finger.
God works all things for OUR good. All He wants is us to believe in Him. It's that simple and that complex.
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.