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.
I think you got the posts mixed up. It was Mark who said, "Does it really matter if it's 15 million or 50 (who were killed?)"
Post tenebras lux.
Twenty-five percent and growing, by the will of God...
Amen, Kitty Mittens!
Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:14-18"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Do they even read their Bibles?
We are judged by Christ's righteousness, and not by our own.
If you miss this, you've missed just about all of it.
Do you think that was a valid promise from God?
lol. Thank God for even small favors.
Ah, very true. We become new creatures in Christ, old things have passed away, all things become new. Christians have the physical Adamic nature but we have the spiritual nature of Christ since the Holy Spirit is sealed within us. Our old Adamic nature hopelessly wars against this new nature as God perfects us.
These are all fine examples, Hose, but they are not applicable. If your children turn out to be just unlike you and rejecti you, and accept someone else as their father, they are still your children but they are not yours, because they don't want you.
People have gone from believing to unbelieving, from faith to atheism. So, yes, one can be "unborn again."
And, a major difference between us and your analogy, is that we do not specifically create some children in order to disown them and intentionally send them to their deaths, as the Deformed theology teaches or implies.
;^)
[Psst... there are 2 I’s in Irishtenor!!]
Kitty Mittens: Amen, and yes, that is Very True that the Believer will be Judged for Rewards for Service
We are judged after death for everything we have done. Where does it say that it will be for rewards for service, and not for punishment as well? At the moment of death, you are either destined to hell or to heaven; the only judgment ever mentioned has to do with our deeds.
but his Salvation was Already Accomplished by our Christ upon the Cross
His Salvation of the World is that through His sacrifice He made it possible for everyone to be saved, provided we cleave to God and walk imitating Him, and not as Luther would have it, commit 1,000 murders a day knowing God has already forgiven us.
Yes, but by your definition that Protestants "are certain of their salvation because the Bible tells us if we have faith in Jesus Christ, we are among His children" includes all those cults for the same reason: faith in Jesus Christ.
Dr. E: 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
And the Lord said "go, and from now on sin no more." (cf. John 8:11) Yes, He paid for our sins, but we are now obliged to sin no more. Without His sacrifice none had a chance to be saved. With His sacrifice the whole world has a chance to be saved.
For, as soon as He said "sin no more," He adds "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." [ John 8:12 ]
Mark was making the comment because of the way the millions were being tossed around like some bingo chips, instead of human lives; what's a few million more or less, right?
So, the Protestants consder themselves "perfect?" Real "sainst," right?
No, KM said we were judged, and I am saying the Bible says we will be judged, unless some Protestants on this forum are already dead.
Context, contex, not cherry-picking!
Sure, as long as we want to be with Him. He won't keep those who don't want Him. Forced love is no love, Dr. E. Do you understand that?
Truly, as Dr. Eckleburg has shown, we are purchase of God - bought for a price. Here again is that beautiful passage she posted:
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin. – Hebrews 10:14-18
Our first treasure is the Light Himself Who brings forth His own fruit which counts for treasure to us.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:4
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. – Matthew 12:35
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)– John 7:38-39
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. – Galatians 5:22-23
And those whose names have not been blotted out (Revelation 3:5) will receive their reward – their treasure and crown.
Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. – James 1:12
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. – Matthew 19:21
And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold [water] only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. – Matthew 10:42
Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. – 2 John 1:8
Amen. I have found this to be true. No matter what I have gone through, no matter if it is 'good' in my estimation or 'bad' God can use it not only in me, but in the life of someone He sends me to. I've been learning a great deal, btw, about not sitting in judgment on the law, but living it. I am so glad there is One Judge, and I ain't it (James 4:11-12). Quix spoke about confession, repentance, and forgiveness here recently. A-G, a long, long time ago, when you were hosting the Chambers thread, you and I had a discussion about forgiveness and reconciliation; do you recall? I'd never find the link now, I'm sure, but the basis of it was your trying to teach me something that I wasn't prepared to learn yet - in a Word, "That it is man's glory to overlook an offense" (Proverbs 19:11). I couldn't understand at the time how to accomplish that amazing feat: Christ is still growing in me. I've been through some experiences lately that have grown me up a bit more into Him - truly, He is slow to anger, gracious, full of compassion, and of great mercy (Psalm 145:8, Exodus 34:6, Joel 2:13, Jonah 4:2). He fully expects us to be perfect as He is perfect - not in ourselves, out of our imperfectness, but from His infinite Life to us in Christ.
I wish that happened all at once. I am comforted to know Paul's confession: "Not that I have already attained," and to be reminded that it is the one who "hungers and thirsts for righteousness" that is blessed. I rejoice that we can ask and keep on asking for Wisdom from Above and never exhaust the patience or the resources of Our Father.
How much better it is, as Jesus teaches, to not only let pass the strike of a man across my cheek, but to offer him the other to strike as well; to accept wrong, to let myself be cheated.
It is the devil I am to resist, not men. Oh, for more wisdom to know in every instance what this looks like! I begin in knowing how my Jesus has done it: By the Word, amen.
It is the humble heart, the generous eye, that pleases God and receives His blessing, while the arrogant are far from Him. How good it is to humble myself under His hand, to wait to be lifted up in His good time. I am learning that it is for me to live this, and by the living perhaps teach, for it is certainly not a lesson that mere words of man can impart, but only the Word and Spirit of the Living God as He grows within His Children, amen. Even the experience of having fallen and being picked up over and over again is some useful testimony to a fellow traveler on the road. What a mercy.
Perhaps it's the contrarian in me that always feels the need to add a tweaking to this understanding of "turning the other cheek." Indeed, as you say, we turn the other check because God alone is all men's judge and jury.
But we shouldn't miss the assurance spoken by Solomon in Proverbs and later repeated by Paul in Romans. This assurance points up the difference between His children and those who are lost. God's love is not the love of a universalist; it's the love of a particularist -- a specific, individual love that creates, nurtures, sustains, redeems and brings home, infallibly.
All others pay cash.
For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee." -- Proverbs 25:21:22
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." -- Romans 12:19-21 "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
This is how much God loves us. That anyone who injures His children will know His wrath. Amazing, isn't it?
So we're not to assume we "overcome evil" in order to change that evil (although that can and does happen). But our purpose in overcoming evil is so that we remain apart from that evil in order to "prove the will of God"...
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." -- Romans 12:2
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.