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.
What would you have the Church do?
These people were theologically and Scripturally wrong; they are wrong today. Should we shrug our spiritual shoulders and wave as the heretics and apostates merrily board the hellbound express?
What should the Church of Jesus Christ do when the arrogance and hubris and pride of mankind leads so many of them into Satanic embrace?
Given that the Reformed theology "empowers" the self-appointed "elect," that is ti s a man-made rleigion that appeals to human vanity and arrogancy, it is a real miracle that all of Christianity was not consumed by this evil, which is all about arrogated self-righteousness, power and lawyering, and none about love.
You might want to give to yourself a deeper understanding of the role and the responsibility of the Church.
I’ve been through the whole business of “may God strike me dead if I’m wrong and God hasn’t struck me dead yet so therefore I am of and with God and you had better agree with me because God is backing me.”
These folks were not, at least not the leaders, seeking greater understanding. They were seeking power. The quest for spiritual understanding was the excuse.
I wouldn’t expect you to rationalize it any other way. The numbers of slaughtered, however, speak for themselves.
Exactly.
Agreed, so what does it have to do with this conversation? I've never heard a Christian complain about God changing his heart.
If God changes our heart without our participation or desire, it is forced.
Yes, and the bad part is ...? If one believed that hell would be a preferable alternative in order to maintain his free will, then perhaps a curative action was indicated in the first place. :)
We don't go around snatching McDonald's burgers our of fat people's hands just because obesity is unhealthy, do we? Do we arrest smokers because their habits are disgusting?
Stay tuned for a Democrat administration coming soon to a theater near you. They certainly use the law, i.e. the tax code, to change behaviors they do not like. It's bad that they do it because they really do not have the moral authority to do so. God, OTOH, DOES have the moral authority to change people without them having asked first.
I should put up a topic here in which we ask people if they believe that they are of the elect; if they KNOW that they’re going to heaven.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the responses would be less than enthusiastic; formerly I had asked about things like frequency of prayer and actual physical worship amongst our Protestant brethren and to an individual, they all declined to contribute.
I suspect that the veneer of their worship is relatively thin, as is the rock of their faith. If they had something to gloat about, I suspect that the contributions would have been both frequent and voluminous.
I suspect that the enthusiasm for the benevolent tyrant philosophy of God is entirely coincidental with the idea that those who espouse it also believe that they are of the elect.
If there is no choice, then how can one sin?
Indeed.
And how many were slaughtered by those with new hope of power that came from a splintering of the Church?
If there was not a rebellion against the Church, how many would have been killed? As it is, how many Reformation-led people have waltzed with the Devil, to the everlasting damnation of their souls? The question might be: do you kill the body to save the soul.
Speaking as one of the elect, I’d suspect that you would indicate the negative since either the person has been chosen without merit to the Kingdom of God (complete with the little voices), or else you are condemned to Hell simply because you are a sinful and completely unworthy pustule on the backside of humanity.
That topic has been discussed endlessly on FR. And yes, to a one the reformers and most Protestants say they are certain of their salvation because the Bible tells us if we have faith in Jesus Christ, we are among His children.
I'm afraid the RCC is the odd man out here.
Iniquities prevail against me: as for our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away. Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple. By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea: Which by his strength setteth fast the mountains; being girded with power: Which stilleth the noise of the seas, the noise of their waves, and the tumult of the people." -- Psalm 65:2-7
"According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him. Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." -- Ephesians 3:-21"O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.
God elects whom He will. Men have been railing against that fact since Adam. Their protests don’t change the truth that some men seek to make life more precarious and needlessly fearful so that other men will fall to their knees before them and the idols of their own making.
Ah, the old Catholic Church, the curmudgeon, the fastidious, the cranky, the true.
All of the Reformers cannot by example go to heaven because there are woeful sinners amongst them.
We have had many devout Protestant serial killers; do they go to Heaven? The Catholic Church may be odd man out, but that only goes to illustrate that the Reformation was wrong, is dangerous spiritually, and has claimed more souls for satan than any other enterprise since time began.
There is some wisdom in that.. I don't like appearing to assume either anti catholic(orthodox) or anti protestant positions... When I pretty much see them as co conspirators..
I hate to admit it but they are both(all) needed.. to expose mankinds lack of spiritual reality..
I like things neat and simple.. and they are simply not simple..
But under the philosophy of predestination, I will go to Heaven if He wants me to; I will go to hell if He wants me to and there’s nothing that you or I can do about it.
God is who He says He is in Scripture -- "I AM."
"I create the fruit of the lips" -- Isaiah 57:19
If there is no choice, then how can one sin?
"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).
And faith, like all good things, is a gift from God.
I sympathize with you entirely --- but I still don't think it is morally appropriate for the Church of Jesus Christ to launch a bloody crusade against the Vatican to put an end to this heresy and apostasy :)
Ultimately that is correct. But anyone who is predestined to have faith in Jesus Christ will believe and be saved.
No one will be in heaven who does not believe in Jesus Christ and has not been sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Reprobates are not in heaven. The redeemed are in heaven because Christ purchased them with His life and permitted them to be acquitted of their sins.
"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- 1 Corinthians 6:20.
You're seeing life as linear. Look at the bigger picture. At the end of our life we will each either go to heaven or hell. If we end up in hell, it is because God's justice requires retribution for each man's sins. If we end up in heaven, it is because God chose to apply Christ's righteousness to our sins and allow us to be presented to God as blameless, clothed in His blood.
From the moment of creation, God ordained what would eventually happen to every person ever born. He knew to whom He would give faith and He knew to whom He would withhold faith. And those who are not given faith do not want faith.
No one is denied faith when they desire it. We are told to ask for anything we want and Christ will provide it ("Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us" - Ephesians 3:20).
But the point of God's sovereignty is that anyone who desires Christ does so because God first opened their eyes and ears and first gave them a new heart with which to know the truth and be saved.
That's how amazing God's love is -- that He loved us before we loved Him; before we could earn His love...
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
LOL. Yep.
"Man's mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain." -- John Calvin
LOL. Well, you're half-right. What drives us is spiritual, but it represents the best of health. We know whom we have believed.
"I create the fruit of the lips" -- Isaiah 57:19
All glory to God.
LOL. Spoken like a true relativist.
It sure as heck matters to the other 14,999,950, dontcha think?
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.