Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

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.

My understanding of your position now is that there must be a cooperation between man and God. Each does (H)his own part, but even in the human part you rely on God. I think you'd say that in your own cooperation it is God who is behind it or a part of it. So, to make up numbers, even if you split your "half" with God, that still leaves a "quarter" of the credit going to the man. I'm just trying to come up with a way to express this since I know we disagree on "something" here. :)

The Bible clearly discusses synergy between God and man. Whenver man says "I obeyed the commandments", or something to that effect, we do not understand that this means "I did it myself". St. Ignatius of Loyola (founder of the Jesuits) wrote something that may be helpful (or may not!):

Pray to God as if everything depended on Him.

Do everything as if everything depended on you.

It is a balance between what the Scriptures tell us. Although it would be nice to look at ONE extreme and ignore the other, the Word of God clearly tells us BOTH. I intend on trying to be a servant to the Word, and will not foist my own theology on the Scriptures which cuts out large pieces of it. As such, without being able to fully understand or explain it to my Protestant reformer brothers, I believe that God does it all and I do it all in a different sense.

I know you won't like that explanation, but practically speaking, I am fully aware that I can choose to disobey God or I can follow those promptings that I feel daily. I am confronted with various situations where I feel God moving me to do something. At times, I will do it, at other times, I do not desire to and will not. Just as Paul in Romans 7, there is a war going on within me. Anytime I do good, it is God moving my will and reforming my nature. However, in the end, I will be judged based on whether I follow my Lord's will. Just as Mt 7:21-22 says. Hearing the Gospel is not enough. Doing the Lord's will is what makes us righteous in God's eyes. Walking in faith and obedience, just as John the Baptist's parents in Luke 1.

My works do not earn salvation, but at the same time, how can I say I am saved if I do not love? How can I say I am saved if I do not show signs of that freedom from sin? Does a alcoholic say he is straight because he went to an AA meeting and then goes to a bar and drinks? NO!

Let us remember, we are new creations, FK. When Paul says "all have sinned", he is talking about the old man. Once we accept Jesus as our Lord and believe in Him and obey Him, we are MADE righteous, not merely declared so. As a result, our anthropology changes - we CAN become just because of God's promptings. All of that "corrupt man" anthropology is tossed out when we receive the Spirit. We are new creations with a new nature. Those who live by faith are clearly expressing their relationship with God, one that is real, not abstract.

I am sorry if I cannot explain this better. God knows I have tried, and I apologize if I still seem to be unclear or am not making sense.

Regards

They use the same scripture to prove their point, FK. They just concentrate on different verses. Just as Protestants favor +Paul in their disagreement with the Apostolic Church.

We don't favor Paul, your side just comparatively overlooks him. :) As far as the LDS are concerned, as far as I know they have more than one "holy scripture", and they together do not portray a Christ that you or I would recognize. From a Mormon website:

Unlike many other Christian churches, Latter-day Saints believe that revelation from God has not ceased and that the canon of God's revelations is not closed. We believe that we should live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Deut. 8:3, Matt. 4:4) and that God continues to reveal His words and to make sacred scripture available today as in days of old. One precious example of this is The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, an inspired translation of an ancient document from people in the New World who knew of the Messiah and had prophets of God among them. The Book of Mormon and the Bible together are part of the sacred writings accepted by Latter-day Saints. They are both part of the word of God, and we believe that God will yet reveal many other great things in the future.

As for JWs, my understanding is that they use the New World translation, which I don't think either of us could accept. Here is an excerpt from bible-researcher.com about the New World translation:

The New Testament adheres to the text of Westcott & Hort. It is a fairly literal translation, for the most part, but it does have some peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the committee's efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Jehovah" is given as a translation for kurios (Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not when it refers to Christ, the Son. "Torture stake" is put instead of "cross" because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version reflects a Unitarian bias in several places.

So, I would disagree that we and the LDS and JWs rely on similar "enough" sources to arrive at our conclusions.

The Holy Spirit never 'fades away' He permanently indwells the believer, since the body of the Believer is now a temple.(1Cor.6) Where does the Bible say that the Spirit PERMANENTLY INDWELLS in someone from the very beginning of their acceptance of the Lord to their death on this earth and that He will NOT EVER leave? Paul writes to those who "have the Spirit permanently indwelling" to be careful with their dissensions, because THEY are destroying the Temple... "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God shall destroy that one; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are. 1 Cor 3:16-17 Is God the Father going to destroy someone with the Spirit abiding in them? It seems that the Spirit's indwelling is partly conditional. It appears that GOD has the perogative to destroy those who defile the Temple (the Church, in this context, those who break it apart).

What is destroyed is the body.

The body is the Temple, which the Holy Spirit indwells.

The Holy Spirit seals the believer until the day of redemption (Eph.4:30).

The believer can 'grieve' or 'quench' the Holy Spirit,(relationship issues) but never lose the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit Himself has placed His own seal upon the believer until that individual is redeemed.

See also Rom.8:38-39 and Jude 24-25 for the role of the Father and Son in eternal security of the believer as well.

[ It would be the RCC view of Righteousness that would have the individual's righteousness 'fading' if he did not partake of the Sacraments. ]

And the Scriptures, as well. We first receive our righteousness at Baptism, as Paul writes in Romans 6. The Eucharist is "our daily bread", necessary for eternal life, according to Jesus Himself. The sacraments are visible instruments that manifest our relationship with Christ.

No, there is nothing in any 'sacrament' that adds grace to the believer.

The Lord's supper is a remembrance of what the Lord did on the Cross, until He returns (1Cor.11)

Sin, God's grace and love are no different from what you experience. If God is not "perfectly still" for you, why would you assume the Catholic experience is different?

I don't assume the experience is any different between us, I champion that it is the same! :) This is one of my biggest disagreements with Catholic theology. It is one of the biggest problems I personally have had in discussing free will with Catholics. I say that the free will experience is the same for all, but that God is ultimately in full control. Then I really catch it because "free will really isn't free if God is in full control". So, I can't win. :)

I say that God's will and plan always trumps man's will and plan. Using other language (to me) I always run into disagreement over this.

Maybe because you separate 'subjective' free will from actual free will? And because you believe that God is different for the elect and reprobate?

If I am following you, I would say that I MERGE subjective free will with actual free will. When I speak against "free will" it is in the sense that most people are using the term in the conversation. OTOH, I also say that we make a "free will" decision to accept Christ. Now, this decision is made with the brand new heart that we have been given by God, and God knows that the result is going to be that all of His brand new hearts always choose Him. Nevertheless, the experience of the person is to make a decision FOR God. No arm-twisting, no force. So in that sense I think subjective free will and actual free will are the same.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by God being different for the elect and the reprobate, so I will agree to that God loves the former, but not the latter. Also, that Christ died for the former, but not the latter. I suppose that is different. :) So, yes I think that the experiences of the elect and the reprobate are very different. One is given saving grace and one is not. But I would put you and me in the same group, so our experiences should be the same. :)

God does not hide or change dependent on the individual. This is our theology.

While I certainly agree that God changes for no one, I think the Bible is clear that God does "hide" from very certain individuals:

Deut 31:17-18 : 17 On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?' 18 And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.

Jer 33:4-5 : 4 For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says about the houses in this city and the royal palaces of Judah that have been torn down to be used against the siege ramps and the sword 5 in the fight with the Babylonians: 'They will be filled with the dead bodies of the men I will slay in my anger and wrath. I will hide my face from this city because of all its wickedness.

Don't these seem to say that God treats people differently based on the situation?

You can experience this the same as everyone else. It's only if you don't trust this - if you think it's subjective, illusionary, "perceived free will" as I believe you put it, then you can start believing that God depends on your theology. And you can get lost in it, separating what you truly experience from how your theology says it actually is "from God's POV".

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to trust. :) I don't think our experience is illusionary at all. It is all the reality we know. So, I am fine with accepting it at that level. Without contrasting to anyone else, I don't need to understand all of God's workings behind the scenes for things to be real for me. We all see the workings of God's hands with our own eyes, yet who can explain them all? That makes our experiences no less real.

FK: [1 Kings 18:42:] "... but Elijah climbed to the top of Carmel, bent down to the ground and put his face between his knees."

Prostration is a sign of adoration, worship, respect. WE do that without asking for anything from God.

So your answer is that Elijah, a righteous man, went to the mountain top with his servant, and not part of any religious observance in a church of course, prostrated himself before nothing, since it was not God's house and God wasn't "there" and none of His angels were "there", then got up without praying? :) Look, I honestly don't know, but I thought when one prostrates, it is before "something", whether it be God Himself, or one of His angels (as in scripture, even if it was wrong to do so), or in His house, or even before a human king. It just has to be IN FRONT OF something. None of that applied on the mountain top. IOW, no one climbs a mountain top to prostrate himself before God, then gets up and leaves without praying. :)

Therefore, the much more reasonable conclusion is that Elijah was praying. I don't even have a problem with supposing that he was prostrated, but I can't believe he wasn't praying while doing so. What would be the point? I see your rationale as forced. Your description just doesn't fit the situation on the mountain top.

None of these signs of respect and adoration of God are actually prayers. Prayers are supplications sung by the priest and the laity, asking God for mercy, forgiveness, etc., in other words, supplications, pleadings, mixed with visible acts of adoration.

I am not really moved to argue over what is a prayer. I know what it is and I'm sure you do too. :) In the Lord's Prayer, there are "signs of respect and adoration of God", and there is also supplication. That's all I need to know. :) But here, your second sentence appears to betray your first. If prayers are, IOW, "supplications, pleadings, mixed with visible acts of adoration" (second sentence), then how can you say that adoration of God doesn't count as prayer (first sentence)?

Calvinist services involve singing and a preacher of some kind walking on stage drawing unnecessary attention to himself or herself (like in the case of Pastor Scott's beautiful pastor-wife, with her long, flowing hair) all of which distracts from God and is pure vanity.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Well, yes there is singing such as in:

Ex 15:1-5 : 1 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord: "I will sing to the Lord, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea. 2 The Lord is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. He is my God, and I will praise him, my father's God, and I will exalt him. 3 The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name. 4 Pharaoh's chariots and his army he has hurled into the sea. The best of Pharaoh's officers are drowned in the Red Sea. 5 The deep waters have covered them; they sank to the depths like a stone. ......

Of course the lyrics probably sounded snappier in the original language, but there are tons of examples of singing to the Lord in scripture. I don't understand any church that looks down its nose at singing to the Lord.

In addition, I must object to your assertion that all of our preachers draw unnecessary attention to themselves. LOL! My church isn't even a Calvinist church, but I can assure you that we have no "long, flowing hair" wafting about on stage distracting the congregation from their worship. :) Our pulpit is a waft-free zone!!!

Our services are focused on God and God only. It's not a performance. It's not high tech. It's not a "pep" talk like some mega "church" pastors and their "feel good" preaching.

Your services SHOULD be focused on God and God only. The services at my church are too. The musical component of our services, consisting of singers and instrumentalists, are merely an aid to the worship. Nobody comes to our church on Sunday to hear the music. The vast majority of them come to worship God. Some/many of them also, as an aside, appreciate the music for the glory it (hopefully :) gives to God. Our Minister of Music tells us all the time that our purpose is to bring glory to God, and that's it.

As far as high tech, our pastor wears a microphone so that everyone can hear him. We are by no means a large church but not everyone would be able to hear without it. We also use screens to show scripture in big letters during the sermon, lyrics to hymns in big letters, announcements, missions videos, etc. I fail to see how this would taint the worship experience. But neither do I say that every church SHOULD be like mine in this regard. Not at all. I surely agree that some of the mega-churches are over-hyped and have a watered-down message in order to "reach" (cater to) the most people. This is ridiculous and unscriptural. God's word is God's word and should be preached regardless of how many people will like it at the first hearing. The truth can't be compromised like that. Even if milk is on the menu, there are good ways to serve it and bad ways too.

What is destroyed is the body.

I disagree. Considering how Paul speaks here and throughout, destroying the body is of little consequence to him. What sort of threat would that be to a person causing hate and discontent within the community by telling them that they will die and now join Christ in heaven???

The Holy Spirit seals the believer until the day of redemption (Eph.4:30).

A seal is a mark, a "tatoo", something that says we are 'God's property'. It is not something that prevents you from falling away. Practically speaking, people who have been "sealed" have fallen away and are no longer Christian, so this reality proves that interpretation incorrect. Perhaps you should continue reading Ephesians, about 6 or 7 verses later...

Scripture, please. This does not jive with real life, either. People who are family can disown each other and end their relationship.

See also Rom.8:38-39 and Jude 24-25 for the role of the Father and Son in eternal security of the believer as well.

I disagree with your interpretation. WE can fall away. Romans tells us that GOD will not abandon us, nor can anyone ELSE force us to leave God. WE can, though.

No, there is nothing in any 'sacrament' that adds grace to the believer.

Where is your evidence? Sorry, you are not authoritative enough in my mind to take you at your word when you make such declarations, especially without any proof or Scriptural evidence whatsoever...

Regards

[What is destroyed is the body.]

That is exactly what Paul does do with the individual who is sleeping with his father's wife,

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1Cor.5:5).

That individual was a saved man, who was going to suffer the 'sin unto death' (1Jn.5:20), but he would still go to heaven since Christ died for all of his sins.

He is disciplined on earth for them (Heb.13, Gal.6), not in eternity.

[ The Holy Spirit seals the believer until the day of redemption (Eph.4:30). A seal is a mark, a "tatoo", something that says we are 'God's property'. It is not something that prevents you from falling away. Practically speaking, people who have been "sealed" have fallen away and are no longer Christian, so this reality proves that interpretation incorrect. Perhaps you should continue reading Ephesians, about 6 or 7 verses later... ]

When the Holy Spirit seals you, you are sealed forever.

If you want to see what the power of a seal is read the book of Daniel, when Daniel is thrown into the lions den, and the King set a seal on it, and even a King couldn't break it (Dan.6:17).

The King couldn't get in, and Daniel couldn't get out.

That is what the sealing of the Holy Spirit represents.

[ The believer can 'grieve' or 'quench' the Holy Spirit,(relationship issues) but never lose the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit Himself has placed His own seal upon the believer until that individual is redeemed ]

Scripture, please. This does not jive with real life, either. People who are family can disown each other and end their relationship.

A son remains a son no matter what that son does.

The DNA never changes.

Moreover, in the United States, if a child is adopted, that child can never be disinherited.

A natural child may be, but a adopted child can never be.

And a Christian is adopted into the family of God (Rom.8:15)

[ See also Rom.8:38-39 and Jude 24-25 for the role of the Father and Son in eternal security of the believer as well. ]

I disagree with your interpretation. WE can fall away. Romans tells us that GOD will not abandon us, nor can anyone ELSE force us to leave God. WE can, though.

Gee, you sound like an Arminian, not a Catholic.

Rom. 8:38 says 'any other creature'.

That includes even you.

Once you have received the free gift of salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ, nothing and no one can separate you from that relationship.

Whatever sins you commit in time, will be dealt with in time, but you will be punished as child of God (Gal.4).

[ No, there is nothing in any 'sacrament' that adds grace to the believer. ]

Where is your evidence? Sorry, you are not authoritative enough in my mind to take you at your word when you make such declarations, especially without any proof or Scriptural evidence whatsoever...

I am not claiming any authority.

My authority is the word of God.

Nowhere in scripture does it say anything about any 'sacrament' adding grace to the believer.

Paul states in 1Cor.11:24 that the Lord's supper is done in remembrance for Christ's work on the Cross.

But maybe you can direct me to the scripture that says that a Priest can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

I haven't found that one yet.

Never said Ho Hum or anything similar. I think that it is all very serious.

The Church is the Church, left to us by Jesus Christ in order to be His temporal body, and to teach, instruct, admonish and evangelize. Any departure from Church teachings must be viewed in the light of those teachings, and of Scripture. When I said before that I don’t get to define heresies, I really ought to have extended it to theology and doctrine as well.

“a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation” refers to the Gnostics, by definition of the Church Fathers who fought against them almost right from the beginning. That definition is not of the Church.

Calvin, however smart or equipped with whatever other gifts, faults and tendencies that he was, is not and never will be a Church Father. He developed yet another theology based upon personal preferences. One of many thousands in that loose collection known as Protestantism. Check with Scripture; that’s a good thing. Just remember that private interpretation of Scripture is verboten. The Church is the pillar of truth, not murdering thugs who set up theological tyrannies in Geneva.

Most Protestants have little problem with Biblical apparitions, however, they apparently stopped with the Apostles. The Church on the other hand, has this to say:

A Few Basic Concepts

Catholics Are Free to Believe in Apparitions,
But Adhere to the Church’s Directives on the Subject.
Because apparitions are private revelations, Catholics are free to believe in them without Church approval, so long as the apparition contains nothing which contravenes with faith and morals. However, the faithful rely on the Church’s opinions in these matters because of her obvious expertise in the things and the nature of God. The faithful regard the Church as the accepted authority on determining the authenticity of apparitions.

The Church’s approval of an apparition is of tremendous importance to the faithful, as it signals that they may include the message/s of an apparition into their spirituality, if they so choose, without fear of encountering errors.

The Church’s Approval Does Not Come Easily or Quickly
The Church never gives her approval on an apparition without exhaustive and repeated investigation. It is not unusual for the Church to grant approval after the apparitions cease and/or after the death of the visionary.

When The Church Investigates An Apparition
It Signals There Is Enough Evidence to Warrant
the Commitment of Resources
Just as the U.S. Justice System does not launch an investigation without sufficient evidence, neither does the Church commit its resources to an investigation, without sufficient evidence. However, when the U.S. courts have enough evidence to open a case, it is not a happy day for the accused. Conversely, when the Church provides an investigation into an apparition, that action signals that there has been enough evidence to warrant the commitment of the Church’s resources. And, that is a good thing for the subject of the inquiry.

Supervision of the Church’s Investigation Rests with the Authority of the Local Archbishop/ Bishop
This means that the Archbishop or Bishop, of the locality in which the apparition is occurring, has been granted the authority, by the Church, to supervise the case, draw conclusions, and pronounce a decree, (a verdict).

Although it is not a typical occurrence, obstacles and difficulties occurring to members of commissions, tasked with investigating apparitions, have lead to inaccurate conclusions, casting unnecessary doubt on authentic messengers of God. And at times, these errors were not corrected until a great number of years had passed.

Investigations of Apparitions And the Holy See
The Holy See is the center of the Church’s government. It is located in Vatican City, Rome, Italy. The Holy See does not personally attend to the investigation of every apparition. Rather, the supervision of an investigation is under the authority of the local bishop, or as in the case of Emmitsburg, the Archbishop. This local authority provides the Holy See with his conclusions. The findings are reviewed.

The Local Authority’s Decrees Are To Be Given Due Respect
The local authorities, referred to as the local Ordinary, are the archbishops and bishops. They are successors of the Apostles. They are in union with the pope and govern the Church. They are responsible for the spiritual life of the diocese, with archbishops having the added responsibility of a certain amount of responsibility over the bishops in neighboring diocese.
The archbishops and bishops are part of the Church’s authority and make up the Church’s hierarchy. Their guidance is an essential component in the spirituality of the faithful. They are shepherds and work for the benefit of the fold that has been entrusted to their care. Their judgments must always be given due respect.

However, Infallibility Does Not Apply
The Catholic Doctrine of Infallibility teaches of the pope’s inability to err on central issues of the Christian faith, when making an official statement about faith or morals. This doctrine does not extend to any other member of the hierarchy of the Church. Actually, infallibility does not even extend to the pope in his everyday circumstances. Infallibility only extends to the pope when he is making and official statement about issues pertaining to the faith and morals of the Christian faith.

As history has taught us, everyone makes mistakes, we all have weaknesses. Therefore, prayer and openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit needs to be employed, especially in controversial situations, as they are tools that never fail us, bringing us the gifts of wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety and reverence of the Lord, making true discernment possible.

The Truth Will Emerge and the Church Will Proclaim It
There is no doubt that debate and controversy will always surround active and on-going private revelations and apparitions. There is also no doubt that in the end, the Church will always provide the faithful with the Truth on the matter.

If the Holy Spirit, under Reformed theology, never fades away, then why is the now saved believer able to sin?

Could you possibly expand on this “filling” (and possibly on the opposite -emptying?). If one can be filled, can one be emptied? What does quenching the Holy Spirit mean? Can one filled with the Holy Spirit blaspheme the Holy Spirit and thus be condemned to hell? One Calvinist here has claimed not. If I quench a fire, it goes out. Does the Holy Spirit then exit the individual since He is now quenched?

Certainly, we believe that the baptism of importance is of the Holy Spirit. We are instructed to baptize with water and the Spirit. We more or less agree there.

Jesus said, “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God’s kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit” (John 3:5). At the Ascension, our Lord commanded the apostles, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Teach then, to carry out everything I have commanded you” (Mt. 23:19-20). In another account of the Ascension, Jesus added, “The man who believes in [the good news] and accepts Baptism will be saved; the man who refuses to believe in it will be condemned (John 16:16).

Baptism is the sacrament which infuses the divine life of the Holy Trinity into our soul and opens to us fully the mystery of Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection. Through the nourishment of grace from the reception of other sacraments, the study of the faith, and our life within the Church, we live our Baptism looking forward to its fulfillment in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The other sacraments nourish us and keep us spiritually healthy. It is possible that spiritual health can be maintained without the other Sacraments, just not likely for most. Fading? Not exactly a word I’d use, but I suppose it communicates some of the essence.

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.