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.
Exactly my point of what prayer means to the predetermined.
Jesus tells us over and over to pray. He even gave us the Lord’s Prayer. But under predestinarianism, prayer means nothing. It is pointless and meaningless.
We do as God wishes and nothing else. Our prayers and our good works are meaningless, since they avail nothing, mean nothing, and do not change the course of anything in the world. I still have not received an answer from the Calvinists as to the efficacy of anything that we do.
I certainly have not received an answer to the question as to why I should bring the Gospel to the world. I have not received an answer to the question as to whether or not an individual who has been elected and not received baptism or the Word of God (getting hazy here amongst beliefs) because I have decided not to do it, will still get into heaven. If so, then anything whatsoever that I do is meaningless.
And therefore, there is no hindrance to me doing whatever I want since either I am of the elect and will get into heaven, or I am not of the elect and will go to hell regardless of what I do. If anything I do here on Earth is meaningless, then what is to stop me from raping and killing a Jessica Lunsford? What separates me from a sadistic human predator like Gerald Couey, if not the Judgement of the Lord?
The heresies began in the first century.
It was only because of the watchfulness of the Church that the first millennium’s heresies were dealt with. It is sad that the second millennium brought the culture of death and opportunism to the forefront, and has entrapped so many otherwise noble lives.
What separates me, other than common human decency?
The fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ will judge my soul moment by moment of my entire life. If the Reformed believe that there will be no Judgement, or that somehow they get a pass, then what gets a Gerald Couey an eternity in hell? Nothing according to Reformed theology.
Preach the Gospel.
Mark 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature."
Obviously your parishoners would have to understand what the gospel is, but other churches have done a pretty good job of teaching their members.
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?
We keep trying to preach the gospel to you. We pray for the lost. My local Church has a good outreach to RC's and apprx 25% of our membership are former RC's who have been saved. It really is not a complicated process, if they have open hearts we read Scripture together.
The Church has done such a poor job when 25% of its members have renounced the Church of Christ. We have so many former Catholics who have embraced the religion of the now, the religion of the slick, the glib and the opportune. The religion of the preacher upon the pulpit right now.
I’m sort of happy that they didn’t land further from the target than they did, but, it is a judgement upon us that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ was unable to keep our members from slipping away and joining your church. I am ashamed.
We Believe we were Judged; we were Judged in Jesus Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross, when He Stood in for us and Payed the Penalty we were Due for All our Sin. Our Debt has been Payed in Full. Either Christ Pays the Debt of our Sin, or we Pay for our own Sin in Hell. Since our Christ has Payed the Debt we Owed, the Debt is Forever Gone.
That Monster Couey is Hell-Bait because he is a Sinner in Adam and in himself, and he will Pay for his Unspeakably Hellish Deed, and Deeds, Forever in the Lake of Fire.
The very Bible they worship tells them otherwise.
It shows that nothing is set in stone. God gives us until the last breath to change our mind and come to Him.
Yet the Bible says that it has been appointed fort men to die once and after this comes judgment [Heb 9:27]
Maranatha, Jesus!
Marantha, Jesus!
[.. We pray for the lost. My local Church has a good outreach to RC’s and apprx 25% of our membership are former RC’s who have been saved ..]
Reading a good church history when they were probably misinformed might be a blessing to many of them..
Miller’s Church History..
http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/millers/toc.htm
Praise God!!!
Yeah, but you see they concocted a "get-out-of-jail" card even for this one. They will say that those who commit such sins are not (and never were) the elect. LOL!
They also deny that, once saved, you cannot lose you salvation (fall) because God promises that nothing will snatch you out of His hands.
This flies in the face even of +Paul, from whom they claim to get this theology (by revisionist interpretation of Luther's), when he says: "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!" [1 Cor 10:12]
Duh! And they say the Lord's Supper is a "symbolic" ritual. Yet +Paul says "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" [1 Cor 10:16-17] Double Duh!
When your children "fall" are they still not your children?.. You pick them up and wash them off.. practically.. You may warn and/or forgive them..
There are no words in any language I know of to be "UNBORN AGAIN" or after being "born" to be "UNborn".. physically or even spiritually.. "You MUST be born again" - Jesus.. Being UNborn is UNscriptural.. And flys in the face of the image..
Witness the "Prodigal son".. The father ached for his sons learning phase.. and missed him still as his son.. Witness also his brother.. and all that "hubris".. I guess you buy some people books(bibles) and they EAT THE PAGES...
It's our nature, FK. If we give in to our nature, we reject God. It all comes down to that. As long as, and whenever we serve our ego, we reject God.
Yes, it is our Adamic nature to reject God, but it is NOT our nature to thwart God's will. We have never had that power, and if one believes that we control who is to be saved (re: us) then one grants power to man that he does not have.
According to your belief a murderer commits murder because God wants him to. If that is so, then the Reformed God is both Good and Evil, because murder is evil by God's own laws.
The crucifixion itself was an illegal murder by God's own laws, yet God wanted it anyway. Jesus PROVES that by saying that He could have stopped the process at any time (Matt. 26:53), yet He chose not to, and in fact went out of His way to arrange it. So by your statement, Jesus freely admits that He Himself is both Good and Evil. Of course, the Reformed don't arrive at the same conclusions that you do here on our behalf. :)
It is easy to succumb to the deceptive sense of security in the Reformed view, since a secure shelter is what we all seek.
So, then may I assume that the Apostolic God does not provide what His children seek? :) Is it unGodly to want to be secure in Him?
It is also comforting to know that no matter what you do in life, God will forgive you, because you have been saved before you even existed.
Yes, it is very comforting to know that God forgives me for my sins. He says so in scripture. What is objectionable about that?
It is also prideful to belong to an exclusive club, the "select club" of those the King of Kings personally favors. Very flattering.
No, there is no flattery since whatever reason God had for picking me had zero to do with any worthiness on my part. I didn't even exist yet, so how could I pat myself on the back? I just feel blessed and fortunate that I am on the list.
All this points to a human hand in this religion, tailored to man's own (fallen) natural desires: it provides secure shelter; it absolves one of all wrongdoing; it flatters one into believing they are favorites of an otherwise impartial God!
Isn't it your side that has the human hand being in control of everything, especially man's eternal destiny?
FK: "I, for one, want God to be in control of my will ALL THE TIME. :)"
I thought God is in control all the time. Are you saying He isn't in control of your will?
I meant as opposed to the alternative of man being in ultimate control of his own will. I wouldn't want it to be true that I was in control because I would blow it, I'm just not smart enough, independent of God in my free will, to make the right choices.
God IS in control of everything at all times. However, He does not "inject" sin into people in order to cause it. Therefore, when I choose to follow the remnant of my old sin nature it is my choice, a measure (or perception) of control. God retains ultimate control, though, because He retains the power to prevent me from committing that sin if it so suits Him. He allows it sometimes and He prevents it sometimes.
In the reformed way of thinking there can be no surrender because you have no free will. You have been pre-programmed to "surrender" and the tape is just playing itself out.
Who says that there must be your idea of free will for the surrender to be real? When the Japanese surrendered in 1945, would you call that a "free will" decision? :) Did they not really surrender?
Amen, and yes, that is Very True that the Believer will be Judged for Rewards for Service, but his Salvation was Already Accomplished by our Christ upon the Cross. Many of our Works will be Burned Up, because they were Done for Wrong Motives, instead of for the Glory of God, but Any Works Standing the Test will be Rewarded.
The LDS, the JWs and whatever other “cults” you’re referring to are not Protestant denominations and they are certainly not reformed.
With good seats in Heaven?
Astounding. The fact you dismiss this core belief of Christianity positions yourself outside the church of God and contrary to God's word...again.
"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
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.