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.
Ok, John “SHOWED RESPECT” for the angel. The angel told him not to do that, either.
***So, the Apostle was not confused, nor was he wrong. But he didn’t worship the angel as if he were God.***
If what John had done was NOT wrong, the angel wouldn’t have said anything. He BOWED to the angel and the angel CORRECTED him.
WHAT WAS THE ANGEL’S RESPONSE??????????? It was wrong, dude.
Ya know, I found many verses that would show otherwise, but, since you pick and chose what you believe out of the Bible, it would be silly of me to argue any more. Believe what you want, the Bible shows different.
Dear Hoser;
You claimed that the Church has murdered those who would dare to read the Bible. I asked you for supporting evidence. You are growing increasingly hostile with each request for evidence, as I read through each work and find that it does not support your claim. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that supports your claim. You have provided links that I have to read through in order to make sense of them and understand their positions. To no avail.
I am at a loss as to what you are up to. It does not appear to be God’s work, as God is the God of truth. And it has been entirely too easy to gainsay your positions, as your claims have been entirely rendered invalid. So what are you up to?
I have read through them.
I have asked you before; I will ask you now to provide chapter, page number and name of those that you have been murdered by the Church for the crime of reading the Bible. I have been unable to find any from your sources.
I am starting to doubt your sincerity.
"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."
The credit still goes to Father.
No it doesn't. How can you say that the Spirit of God does nothing as a person but the Son of God does? That just erases the personhood of the Spirit. You can't mean to do that.
The third verse is of course +John which, unlike +Paul, correctly teaches that it was Jesus who raised Himself, which the Church incorporated into the Creed. We cannot mix and match divine Hypostases, although the Three are never without each other, their separate roles and identities in the divine economy of our salvation are not to be confused, mixed.
And I suppose you know that John was right and Paul was flat out wrong because the Church tells you so? It's interesting that the Church which seeks credit for writing and Canonizing the Bible is the same Church that declares it full of error. I realize that some of your opinions on the OT may not be fully backed by the Church, but this is the NT and it's in the Creed. Therefore, my guess is that the Church is declaring Paul to be wrong. ...... I'm not sure what you mean by mixing and matching. These verses reveal that the one true God raised Jesus from the dead, and that we shouldn't confuse personhood with the Godhead.
+Paul, on the other had, on more than one occasion puts "God" above Christ, such as 1 Cor 11:3 - "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."
No, Christ fulfilled His role, but He was still God, and Paul knew that. It says everywhere that Christ prayed to the Father. Does that put God "above" Christ? No. Paul does not question the deity or essence of Christ.
Nowhere does the Bible call the Holy Spirit "Lord." Both the Spirit and the Son are subordained to "God" (meaning the Father, without specifying it as such).
The Bible is clear enough that the Spirit is God. For example:
Acts 5:3-4 : 3 Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."
1 Cor 3:16 : Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
Rom 8:9 : You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
John 14:16-17 : 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
---------------
FK: "No, to my knowledge we are given no indication at all that the Spirit indwelt Adam and Eve before the Fall. Do you have any evidence?"
Were they not under grace?
Sure they were under SOME grace but it couldn't have been saving grace, or else eternal death would not have been earned upon the first sin (wages of sin). After that sin they needed saving since they were unfit for Heaven, just like the rest of us.
So, the Holy Spirit will not indwell in heaven?
I'm actually not sure of the mechanics of that, but I do know that we will be sinless and eternally in His presence.
FK: "In the abstract, "Yes", murder does not disqualify one from Heaven".
Even though one of the Commandments is clear about that. Why then give commandments?
I doubt that we really disagree about this. As I said above, the wages of sin is death, but the Bible also says that there is a way out of this punishment. Someone took the punishment for us, even for murder by a believer (like David). ...... One reason God gave His Commandments was to show us just how much we could not live up to His requirements. He gave them knowing full well that no one could keep them (outside of Christ). We are supposed to understand that.
But if a murderous impulse is reached and acted upon, no big deal. Salvation is assured.
Salvation is assured, but it IS still a big deal. Not only is there a great likelihood of earthly punishment, but there will absolutely be judgment for it in the afterlife.
I am sorry, this way of thinking may not give license to kill, but it makes mockery of commandments and laws because, ultimately, all laws and everything we do are meaningless as far as our salvation is concerned ...
Well, IS salvation earned by following commandments and laws or not? Wasn't one purpose for the coming of Christ to show us once and for all that the answer is NO?
That’s Phil, the Prince of insufficient light. He darns people to Heck.
Some were murdered for just having bibles not in Latin..
Madame Guyon was persecuted in several/many ways before being murdered..
For reading the bible and having the GALL to believe it..
try again..
Miller’s Church History..
http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm
...OR...
Madame Guyon....
http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/guyon.htm
...OR...
Foxes Book of Martyrs..
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/index.htm
The wages of sin is certainly death, unless God appears out of the blue and gives one great tip to an individual, which pays for heaven.
The Church has declared that the Bible, while individual writings may be of error, has enough Holy Spirit available to be able to translate the writings into the Catechism so that the true faithful may proceed according to the will of God.
Paul is not wrong; neither is the rest of the Bible. If you do not have the indwelling Holy Spirit in order to be able to translate the oft convoluted passages, then you’re going to wind up with the 33000 or million or billion or whatever number of Protestants insist upon private interpretation.
If you ignore Matt 25: and most of the rest of the Bible, then you have a case for sola fide. And predestinarianism. I will grant you that.
You really are a treat.
If anyone has been following this, they would have seen that I have been asking for sources, that you have provided them, that I have read through them and stated that I cannot find anything in them, and would you please provide chapter, page number and name for those who were murdered for reading Bibles, and all you do is reiterate the sources that don’t provide the information requested.
I am forced to consider the idea that you may be a lunatic. I have not other way to reconcile your statements.
Another well known murder of RC priests.. in league with civil authority..
William Tyndale.. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html
You must be totally ignorant of the inquisition..
Tales of the inquisition are overflowing with murder and torture for many trumped up reasons.. including reading the bible.. even possessing bibles not reading them..
There were many christian inquisitions especially in England, France, Germany and Eastern Europe.. Not to speak of the tragic pograms of the Jews..
Your source once again does not identify any individual who was murdered by the Roman Catholic Church for reading a Bible.
This site does not give any instances of “well known murder of RC priests..in league with civil authority.”
And Willian Tyndale was burned at the stake by agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church. Read your own source.
I am progressing past the stage where I might consider you to be a lunatic.
Your apparent significant dissociation with reality is hindering your arguments.
The Inquisition was initiated in Italy, then was extended to Spain, Portugal and France. There were no inquisitional tribunals in England, Central Europe, Germany or anywhere else for that matter.
I am still unable to discover any information about any individual who was murdered by the Catholic Church for reading a Bible. I am beginning to believe that such an individual is a figment of your imagination, and therefore not worthy of discussion.
[.. The Inquisition was initiated in Italy, then was extended to Spain, Portugal and France. There were no inquisitional tribunals in England, Central Europe, Germany or anywhere else for that matter. ..]
]
You have missed a few Wars.. and other engagements ref.. Millers Church History..
http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm
A war is just a managed inquistion by guile..
It depends on the definition of "free will". I would say that the elect freely choose to come to God, but the standard line I get back is that it isn't a real choice if God caused it. So, either God gives us friendly advice, but stays at least at arms-length away so as not to interfere (presumably because He loves us so much) OR, He changes our hearts to come to Him willingly. I am more than willing to listen to other options if they are out there. :)
Of course problems arise under the first option above, since it has never been explained to me why, if God gives the same "advice" to all people, some people make the smart decision to accept Christ, and most do not. Is it intelligence, luck, wisdom, etc.?
I think you’re in error concerning Madame Guyon being murdered?
Probably from many years of diet and treatment in prison..
and she had help from wealthy friends on the outside.. many more accused of the same crime(s) didn't have that help.. She was not alone there were others.. They died incognito.. unremembered..
The standard line is it isn't a real choice if you have no choice. :)
So, either God gives us friendly advice, but stays at least at arms-length away so as not to interfere (presumably because He loves us so much) OR, He changes our hearts to come to Him willingly. I am more than willing to listen to other options if they are out there. :)
Another option is God is always God and we are created with free will in His image and likeness.
if God gives the same "advice" to all people, some people make the smart decision to accept Christ, and most do not. Is it intelligence, luck, wisdom, etc.?
Glad you put advice in quotes.
The problem I have with your view here is in your question. As if salvation is a matter of marking the right answer. Or saying "I accept Christ." What does this mean? Surely you would answer that it means something more or different than making a "smart decision."
It's this protestant packaging of salvation into always a single event, a single "answer given" - a moment of unsaved followed by a moment of saved - compounded by the inability to not "choose" the incorrect answer, that just doesn't compute.
We are saved from what? Death. When does that occur? When we die. What's in between? Life. How should we live it? Growing closer to God each moment through our Saviour.
"Did I answer the question right yet, God?" makes no sense, FK, as your question illustrates. And when the question makes no sense, perhaps it is the wrong question to ask.
Or perhaps the answer is: "Your life is not over yet; next question?"
Thanks for your reply.
Just did a cursory check on her and no she wasn’t killed by anyone. She did spend 7 months in prison, King Louis the somethingth put her there. It wasn’t for reading the Bible.
Probably murdered? I’m sorry it still seems at least speculative or somewhat inaccurate.
The information I have is that she spent the last 15 years of her life on her son in law’s estate where she died at the age of 69.
thanks for your reply
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.