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.
Scary isn’t it?
You have the final say in your everlasting life. You do, not God. You can damn yourself. You can hop into that handbasket.
God wants all of us to worship him completely and wholly in Heaven. You get to say NO.
How about it, FK?
Do you have the fortitude to say NO?
You are not a robot slave; your prose has convinced me of that. Do you dare say NO to God?
Or do you make that choice? And say YES to God? God does not want robot slaves. He wants fully aware and fully competent creatures to willfully worship Him. Are you up to the task?
So? Those who believe have chosen to follow God's will and do good. Those who chose to do evil do evil. That verse doesn't change verses 28-29. It's still what we do.
The only condition for eternal life in the passage is John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
The good they do are the results of belief not the cause of their eternal life.
The “John” of the Revelation is the same John you quote in John 5:28-29.
Rev 17:8 “..... and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, ...”
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Man’s eternal destiny is already written.
AMEN. It's all right there for anyone and EVERYONE to see. We also have this:
1 Sam 8:6-7 : 6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
1 Sam 12:17-19 : 17 Is it not wheat harvest now? I will call upon the Lord to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the Lord when you asked for a king." 18 Then Samuel called upon the Lord, and that same day the Lord sent thunder and rain. So all the people stood in awe of the Lord and of Samuel. 19 The people all said to Samuel, "Pray to the Lord your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king."
Not only has God always maintained full control, but He didn't even want people THINKING they were in control. Some would have us believe that God has changed His mind.
What is your point? It is up to us to follow Him or to reject Him. We are made free to choose because He set us free. We will be judged on what we do as free men. Those who do evil shall be condemned and those who do good will be saved (cf. John 5:28-29)
Every good thing that emanates from our Christian lives is not us – it is Christ in us. Emphasis mine:
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
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. - Matthew 7:17
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. – Galatians 2:20-21
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. – I Cor 3:13-15
Whether we believe or not, our judgment (condemnation, not some heavenly 'candy') is based on what we have done. Besides John 5:28-29, the Bible elsewhere reminds us that we will be judged according to our deeds and words ("For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned"—Mat 12:37); the hypocrites for their deeds will receive greater condemnation! (cf. Mat 12:39-40). Luke reminds us not to judge, lest we be condemned/judged. (cf. Luke 6:37) condemnation is reserved even for ordinary lawbreakers (cf. Riom 13:2), etc.
If the believers do not sin and are not judged for their sins, then why bother with repentance? "[U]nless you repent, you will all likewise perish" [Luk 13:3] Do protestants repent for their sins or dot they repent only once when they are "saved?" Don't you know "God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent"?" [Act 17:30]
The “John” of the Revelation is the same John you quote in John 5:28-29
That is not a universally held view and you have no proof whatsoever for your claim.
Amen, A-G!
Who can read that perfect Scripture you offered as proof and not understand?
"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." -- Isaiah 59:21
"Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the LORD." -- Psalm 31:24
Believers can abandon God TEMPORARILY, but not to the point of losing salvation. Even during this time God never leaves us.
Not really...
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace [Gal 5:4]
This is obviously what I was talking about. God made His children, and He also made other humans [sic] who are not His children
That's preposterous! We are all made in His image. If we are in His image then we are His children and he is our Father by default. The fact that some, maybe most, of them disown God all on our own, is a different story.
As an Orthodoxer, you basically think (I think) that we are born on a road to Heaven
False.
PS do you call yourself a Baptiser or Baptist? If Baptist, then I am Orthodox...I think Kolo was pulling your leg when he said "Orthodoxer"... :)
Our sin is not judged to determine whether or not we will physically die
I disagree. There is plenty in the NT to show that our deeds and words condmen us.
How can you say that God is always in control when certain men use their independent free wills to bind and loosen?
Becuase God said so, and because He gave it to them.
"The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world"
However, in the KJV the verse is written...
"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
Notice the difference? God does not quicken all men or all men would believe and be saved. The Holy Spirit does not indwell all men or else no one would go astray. Christ did not redeem all men or else no one would remain condemned of their sins, and hell would be empty.
When Christ came, His light revealed all men "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."
"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known." -- Luke 12:2
I'll check the accuracy of the rest of your verses in the morning. Good night.
That depends on how one defines "freedom". If freedom means "able to thwart God's will", then man has power over God.
If we are controlled, then we cannot sin, since sin results from wrong choices, not from following a computer program.
If men are in control, then the scriptures are false and man has power over God.
Why does the apparent loss of moment to moment control bother you?
Because if an omnipotent God does not control, then He does not care.
Without hope, we are as the insects and plants are; simply occupying our days in a preprogrammed fashion until we die.
Without hope for what? Salvation? Are you telling me that if God came down from Heaven and guaranteed your salvation to your face that your response would be: "No thanks, God. I would rather live my life being unsure if I was saved. My existence is strengthened by wishing without really knowing."? Does that make any sense?
This example and similar ones we see like humans created fit only for trash, utterly depraved etc. are an essential part of the logic of the TULIP theology.
Without this plank in the theology, its logic results in God killing innocent children.
My reference to “Bruce Almighty” was sparked by your comment:
“But why an omnipotent being would ever want to relinquish His control over anything is beyond me.”
Yes, in the flick, Bruce is allowed to be ‘God’ but only in his neighborhood. (He’d been critical of God, so God decided to let him see what the job was like...)
God tells him he has complete power over natural forces and humans, except one - he can’t make them love him.
Bruce’s main purpose in life is to win a particular girl. To make her love him. So the plot is set along the lines of our discussion.
The movie is a thought experiment in large sense. And it explores your question of “why an omnipotent being would ever want to relinquish His control over anything.”
Personally, I think it’s an interesting question, and the answer depends on what control is relinquished and why and, in this example, whether the omnipotent being is compassionate and good.
FWIW.
thanks for your reply.
Amen. I've never found the words to say this as well or as concisely as you do, Alamo-Girl. It is the Lord Jesus Christ we follow.
We will rejoice in thy salvation,
and in the name of our God we will set up our banners:
the LORD fulfil all thy petitions.
~Psalm 20:5
Thank you for every encouragement, A-G.
Yes, in law school that was known as the "lawyer's creed" :). Do you know what happens when a lawyer takes Viagra?
......
He gets taller. :)
He will never, never leave me, nor yet forsake me here,
While I live by faith and do His blessèd will;
A wall of fire about me, I’ve nothing now to fear,
From His manna He my hungry soul shall fill.
Then sweeping up to glory to see His blessèd face,
Where the rivers of delight shall ever roll.
~Charles Fry
You must have an interesting definition for the word "tyrant". :) But, I suppose to those who cannot let God be God, and cannot let go of the need to be in control of their own destinies, it really must seem like a tyranny. How could God possibly implement what He thinks is best for us when He gave us our own minds to think with? I mean, we are PEOPLE, and we are really, really smart. We don't need God to be stepping in and interfering with that. We all get it. Heaven, hell, Heaven, hell. We can decide that without God taking over. I mean, just look at the track record of humanity across time. We know what we're doing. Didn't the Israelites usually get it right on their own in the OT? Sure they did. That alone proves that free will is God's design.
Good point, and it always comes from God.
Being born again. At the moment I was born again, in Honduras in 84, I had no works and no one would know as a Christian by any works. All I had was a testimony.
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.