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.
Food for thought. I wish everyone bon appetit. :)
My main point is that I’d feel pretty nervous reading those verses in a denomination that claims to own “Peter’s seat” and makes a tradition of calling someone Father and that seems to be very pleased with a lot of pomp and circumstance.
I had exemplary parents who were both taken too soon by cancer and my kids will never get to fully experience them here during their formative years. I take this a little more personally than I should.
By having a long winded reason for calling someone Father when the bible says not to.
Many know the term the Rose of Sharon.. Sharon was and is a desert region.. Consider.. a rose growing in a DESERT.. Thats how rare miraculous and unusual referring to Jesus as the Rose of Sharon is.. He can be as delicate, moist, and aromatic and by the way beautiful as a Rose in the midst of harsh.. dry,, and forbiding territory.. In the midst of a FIREY FURNACE of problems he can be danceing a jig with you.. The Rose of Sharon..
I guess that you declined to read the treatise. Nonetheless it is all there. I must offer my apologies for being unable to teach you all the world’s wisdom while standing on one leg.
True.. but latin only influenced those languages it didn't DRIVE them.. Latin itself was greatly influenced by Greek.. Which is today also, a mere patois of what it used to be..
Pomp and Circumstance
What! Is somebody graduating?
Somewhere I put up a post on vestments, since "flowing robes" is evidently something we do that is also totally vicious. (I wonder if they didn't flow, would they be okay? More interlining would redeem them?)
Instead of a suit which is altered to fit the Baptist cleric in question and which is his property, the average priest wears, for ceremonial garb, a one-size-fits-all garment which belongs either to the parish or the diocese. This "flowing robe", if made of decent stuff and properly cared for, will last maybe a couple of decades. (Some are hundreds of years old, but are in museums.) ON a bang-for-the buck basis vestments are a good deal, and they are more or less what a gentleman would wear back 1 centuries ago. The church is in trouble for not being fashion forward?
Vestments provide work and an outlet and challenge for textile artists, as ceremonies provide employment for musicians and composers. Some of the finest developments in both music and textiles in the Western world came about because of capital directed at artists.
In the best of all possible circumstances, vestments emphasize the role of the cleric, not his own person. Back in the day when priest and people all faced the same way, the vested minister made part of a visual composition which emphasized the altar and its surround, not the dude himself.
I am glad there is beautiful music. I actually have woven a hanging myself and have a sketch for fabric for vestments. I just need about two years off and a gazillion dollars to buy the silk and spend the time.
More globally, what I keep coming back to is that more and more I believe the Christian Faith. All our Marian stuff, for example, which seems so dreadful to you all, seems to me to follow almost inevitably from what it means that Jesus really was the God the Son of God, and that He the touch of whose garments was able to cure intractable haemorrhage would work wonders in the woman whose womb surrounded him; that he who said that if we feed the least of His brethren we feed Him would work wonders in his Mother who nursed Him. Yes, yes, I know about "blessed rather are they," but that does not persuade me that the best son who ever was withheld from His mother anything that He could give her.
Similarly, yes to lay a claim to the Chair of Peter is a dreadful thing. Those who abuse that claim pay, I expect, dreadful penalties and pay them forever. But in Christ the old bets are off and we may and must in His name dare to take up the promises and gifts. We'd be fools not to be nervous, but poltroons to let our nervousness call the shots.
Oh man I hate it when that happens. All Freepers know that "Everyone deserves my opinion".
I'd bet that there are even some Protestants who haven't read the Bible.
Ofcourse but I never made a claim about them as the claim was made about "Catholics".
This particular passage appears in the filthy Papist lectionary so that it is read at Mass at least once every three years. In my former life in the PepsiCola church, which had a very similar lectionary, I, disguised as "Father Dawg", preached on that passage at least a couple of times.
And in any event, I had read it and been aware of it since I was like eleven years old.
Nonetheless I became a Calflick.
I'm sorry. ;-)
So the passage is subject to interpretation and application, and even those of us who have read it do not find in it the devastation which you see there.
On Calflicks and Scripture, I know it's not the same thing, but a reasonably devout Calflick who goes to Mass daily and reads his office is exposed to right much Scripture, especially in the "Office of Readings" (which, with that deviousness for which Calflicks are famous is an "office" or prayer service with ... READINGS in it, one from Scripture and one from, like, a hagiographical work or a council or a writing of the Fathers or Doctors or whatever. Yeah! Who would have expected readings? Them sneaky papists!)
And somewhere on some thread we're still waiting for the citation which backs up the charge that we killed somebody just for reading Scripture. Not every charge laid against us is true.
I was waiting for a point. So you are aware of that verse, I expected so. I actually give people the benefit of the doubt at having read through the bible atleast once every other yer. I'm usually wrong about that though. I heard once that the average "evangelical Christian" only reads about one page of the bible per month. No wonder people are so easily deceived. Why it's as if they were tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.
(Is Creole right, do you suppose?)
BTW when I was at seminary, I had the pleasure of overhearing one of my NT profs speaking in Latin with some visiting scholar. Latin was the only language they shared.
That's actually quite obvious.
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63 ..]
---------------------------
"Sola Scriptura".. for scripture is the bread of God.. and the blood is his life..
Pick up YOUR cross and follow HIM..
A silly rite or ceremony will not take its/their place..
Read scripture follow it and bear your cross..
A church official cannot do it FOR YOU..
Quite simple really..
And die/das(german) besides.. The closer you get to Russia the more the article gets lost..
While Christ's sacrifice on the Cross got us off the hook and gave us freedom, it is how we use that freedom we received undeservingly that will determine whether we are saved or condmened. Those who are smug in their deceitf belief that all thay have to do is cover their sins with Jesus, by all accounts, will be in for a big surprise.
That is too broad of a brush. Not everyone who cries Jesus, Jesus, is part of His body.
I assert that if He leads you to become a Calvinist – or a Catholic – or an Orthodox – or whatever – then that is what you must do. Same, of course, for me (Romans 8.)
The Church He stablished is one, catholic and apostolic. Sorry, He would never lead anyone to be anything but catholic and apsootlic.
It's enough to know the "how" of our salvation -- by Christ's justification alone.
The "why" is ultimately unknowable.
Predestination is simply an acknowlegement that God is in control, one way or another. It always surprises me when men deny this, but they sure do deny it.
Which, in the end, is just more evidence of our imperfect, egocentric nature.
"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been" -- Ecclesiastes 3:15
Without a due sense of predestination, we shall want the surest and the most powerful inducement to patience, resignation and dependence on God under every spiritual and temporal affliction. How sweet must the following considerations be to a distressed believer! (1) There most certainly exists an almighty, all-wise and infinitely gracious God. (2) He has given me in times past, and is giving me at present (if I had but eyes to see it), many signal intimations of His love to me, both in a way of providence and grace. (3) This love of His is immutable; He never repents of it nor withdraws it. (4) Whatever comes to pass in time is the result of His will from everlasting, consequently— (5) My afflictions were a part of His original plan, and are all ordered in number, weight and measure. (6) The very hairs of my head are (every one) counted by Him, nor can a single hair fall to the ground but in consequence of His determination. Hence— (7) My distresses are not the result of chance, accident or a fortuitous combination of circumstances, but— (8) The providential accomplishment of God's purpose, and— (9) Designed to answer some wise and gracious ends, nor— (10) Shall my affliction continue a moment longer than God sees meet. (11) He who brought me to it has promised to support me under it and to carry me through it. (12) All shall, most assuredly, work together for His glory and my good, therefore— (13) "The cup which my heavenly Father hath given me to drink shall I not drink it?" Yes, I will, in the strength He imparts, even rejoice in tribulation; and using the means of possible redress, which He hath or may hereafter put into my hands, I will commit myself and the event to Him, whose purpose cannot be overthrown, whose plan cannot be disconcerted, and who, whether I am resigned or not, will still go on to work all things after the counsel of His own will. Above all, when the suffering Christian takes his election into the account, and knows that he was by an eternal and immutable act of God appointed to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ; that, of course, he hath a city prepared for him above, a building of God, a house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens; and that the heaviest sufferings of the present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in the saints, what adversity can possibly befall us which the assured hope of blessings like these will not infinitely overbalance? A comfort so divine, May trials well endure. However keenly afflictions might wound us on their first access, yet, under the impression of such animating views, we should quickly come to ourselves again, and the arrows of tribulation, would, in great measure lose their sharpness. Christians want nothing but absolute resignation to render them perfectly happy in every possible circumstance; and absolute resignation can only flow from an absolute belief of, and an absolute acquiescence in, God's absolute providence, founded on absolute predestination.
by Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)
Or maybe I just forgot because the eggs were finished cooking and I was in a hurry. Eggs wait for no man. 8~)
Salvation is by the blood of Christ alone. Nothing else will save anyone. Nothing can improve His blood.
Truly, if a person could be “good enough” to get to heaven, then Christ died for nothing.
For those who are, punishments and condemnations do not await, only rewards and crowns. Our works may be burned, we may be heavenly paupers - but we will be saved.
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, - I Th 5:9
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Romans 8:1
Those doctrines create doubt in the minds of those for whom Christ has shed His blood and steal their joy.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. – Psalms 23:4
My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. – John 10:29
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Tim 1:12
[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. – Hebrews 13:5
The Catholic Church made the same mistake the Jews made, being presumptuous. Neither the Church nor the Jews "are" the tree - Christ Himself is the vine, the Father is the husbandman.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. – Romans 11:18-28
My warning (and mantra on all of these religious threads) is this: anything that is taught by doctrine or tradition of men which does not glorify God or which misdirects glory due to Him to anyone else or which puts itself between the Good Shepherd and His sheep --- is deep spiritual peril.
Our first prayer to our Father who art in heaven, is that His Name be hallowed – and it will be.
To God be the glory!
What are you doing cooking eggs at 2;00 P.M. in the afternoon?
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.