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.
But the written documentation, the legal papers, the communications across distances were predominantly Latin in the West.
During the Middle Ages, the language of many courts in Europe became French - including the Russian court. Today, the common language of communication is English. I have been in many common meetings at FMC where we had Germans conversing with Mexicans and Spanish conversing with Brazilians conversing with Poles conversing with Flemish. We all communicated in English. Same deal.
Same as then.
It might also be noted for the record that the Greek philosophers I cited had no truck with "...magic, astrology, alchemy, spiritualism, etc.".
“This was not preprogrammed into Paul like he was some kind of robot! He still had a choice and freely accepted our Lord”
That’s not Paul’s testimony. He says God chose him from His mother’s womb and his election caught up with his experience of grace on the road to Damascus.
Gal. 1:15,”But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,”
It still all depended on Paul of "Free Will" saying Yes.
We ALL can say we were chosen by God . Each one of us is loved and willed by God from the minute he created us
God wills us all for heaven and we can all say we were chosen ,but we know that some people "choose" not to follow that will that God has for us and end up in hell.
Really? That would be most unusual.
Just the opposite, actually. Since none of us knows the names of the elect we are commanded to preach the word of God to every person on earth, to every non-believer whether next door or across the ocean. And those with God-given ears to hear will hear the truth and know their salvation by the atonement of Jesus Christ.
So the preaching of predestination is not counter to evangelizing the world; predestination is merely stating the Gospel and acknowledging the truth of who God says He is.
Also, predestinarians believe if you don't believe in predestination it is because the Holy Spirit has chosen not to reveal the truth of predestination to you. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of predestination to real believers so you must not be a real believer if you believe in free will.
All correct understanding for everything on the planet comes from the Holy Spirit, don't you think?
And I don't know of any Calvinist who would say that an acceptance of predestination is a requisite for salvation. It's not. I do believe, however, that a proper perspective of God and time and all occurrence within the Creator's creation is a gift from God. I thank God every day for this understanding. I've seen life from both sides. I lived many more years not believing in predestination than under its tutelage. And I can state boldly that my life has been more productive, my witnessing more confident, my family more secure, and my faith in God more certain since coming to believe that what occurs in life is as God wills, one way or another. And with this certainty comes further assurance that...
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Romans 8:28
This is why we preach predestination. The modern world loathes it because the modern world presumes if it can convince men that God is changeable or not in control of His creation then those men themselves can persuade other men that they are in control of life and their liberty and salvation.
And that's just not what Scripture tells us.
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:10
"Free will" is a political outlook, not a theological one.
Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that." -- James 4:13-15"Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit."
Why do you say that?
Does the meaning of “man cannot thwart God’s will” mean that man’s will (and choices) are the same as God’s will and choices in every instance?
If not, how is the phrase defined differently?
If God wants something, He's already got it. At the moment of creation, God determined everything that would ever be by the simple fact of His omniscience. If God foreknows something, that something will be.
And "foreknows" in Scriptural terms means more than a simple awareness. It means the creative responsibility for what occurs.
What can surprise God? Who can thwart God? Who can truly deny God His desire? To answer "men" to any of those questions means God is the servant of man, and not the other way around.
Now men have created a concept known as "free will" to somehow try and get around God's sovereignty. But it's an illusion. And for Christians, it's a needless one. It's much more satisfying to accept that God is who He says He is, and He's in control, and that one way or another, "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).
Everyone thought in those terms then and one who did not would not be understood.
I'm sorry. I'll try again. The phrase "man cannot thwart God's will" seems a pretty important one from the frequency I've seen it used in Calvinism. What I'm focusing on is what this means to you.
God's will is mentioned, if man can't thwart that, I'm led to two different possibilities:
Man has no will; the "illusion" answer; Man's is making God's choices, unaware of this or not.
Or,
Man has a will, makes choices, but in each case his will = God's will and choices, since man cannot thwart God's.
Hope this makes it clearer, and if so, which would be the proper conclusion from the phrase "man cannot thwart God's will".
thanks for your reply.
Evidently Socrates did not. Maybe that's what got him into so much trouble....
In that case, thank you very much too Elsie! :).
Little is known about any of them. What they believed is not known. Aristotle was lost altogether but some Arabs liked that style so there was something to retranslate back. Plato—how much writing attributed to Plato was by Plato and how much was generated by his school? The name Plato means something. Might be interesting. The name Aristotle means something. That might be interesting, too.
We were talking about academic institutions. If you bothered to learn basic history you'd know that some European unversities date way back. The University of Bologna was founded in 1088 AD, 11th century. It functioned like any other university, liber arts, sciences, and issued graduate degrees and diplomas.
There was no other language but Latin that was developed enough to be used for academic purposes. The use of Latin had nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic "police." German languages consisted of few hundred grunts and were inadequate for literary use.
The use of Latin had nothing to do with your goundless assertions and attacks on Catholic liturgical services.
If you can't stick to the subject, then don't post anything. I didn't ask you for your opinion on Catholic "rituals."
I have noticed that many Catholic’s and Catholic churches are very arrogant in the fact that they do very little evangelical work in the community.
I have yet to have a Catholic ask about my spiritual health, invite me to mass or learn about what their church stands.
If you get up to the QC area, you are most cordially invited to attend Mass with us, as is any other individual.
Could you name people who were murdered by the Church for reading the Bible without authority?
I, as a clay pot, am not concerned about what the Maker does. I only praise the Maker. And, it’s not MY theology, but the Bible.
The philosophy of free will most certainly does not depend on God being anything at all other than what He is.
Free will states that we will grasp what is freely offered. Predestination of an individual will ensure that that individual is, well, predestined to do something whether he will or no, or whether I will or no.
If someone is predestined to Heaven and neither I nor anyone else preaches the Word of God to him, will he still go to Heaven? If yes, then what I am doing is pointless. If no, then predestination is wrong.
I am very happy and grateful to God that your life is better now than it was before. That is wonderful. The trouble is that I know personally an individual that grew up SBaptist, turned somewhat agnostic/atheist and got into drugs, alcohol, gangs, petty crime and was well on his way to an early grave. He converted to LDS and his life is now an absolute joy to him. He is well mannered, soft spoken, devout to his religion, a tremendous father to his children and a loyal and protective husband to his wife. His work ethic is impeccable and his assumed responsibility is far beyond his job description.
Shall I take that as evidence that the LDS faith is as correct theologically as Reformed? Would you be willing to go that far?
In short, we believe that God is the Lord and the Master of all Creation and we are His creatures. But we do not believe that He is standing behind us with a FANUC teaching pendant orchestrating our every move in a prescripted universe. I believe that Scripture substantiates it - with a few notable exceptions.
How can a loving God throw people into hell?
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.