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.
So you’re a universalist who believes God doesn’t send anyone to hell, right?
Adam was neither mortal nor immortal. He was created with a potential for both.
There is no error in Genesis 6. But all attempts to rationalize God lead to error
Genesis 6:6 says that God "repented." If God repents (grieves), then His will is not perfect; He makes mistakes; He changes his mind. If He doesn't repent, then genesis 6:6 is in error.
Unfrotunately, the bible is wishy-washy about this. The preponderence of scriptural evidence is that God does repent! (using KJV language).
According to the Bible, God repents in:
However, the Bible also claims (in fewer cases) that God doesn't repent in:
These are biblcal facts. The rest is conjecture.
You are an example to all of us, Alamo-Girl.
I don't deny the statement was made, but I do deny the way it has been self-servingly interpreted by the Apostolic Church. This is the ultimate bottomless cookie jar for a few elite men to stick their hands into forever across time. I mean, what a sweet deal for those who hold or want power. All one does is declare that Jesus said we have all power on earth, and when we're gone we declare that our hand-picked successors then have all power on earth. It's perfect. It doesn't pass the scriptural smell test, but that's OK, because scripture only means what the people in power say it means. :) The circle of power is complete.
FK: "It seems like a blank check."
That's why He didn't give it to everybody.
That doesn't address the issue. It is a blank check to the few men in power in the Church. For the Latins, it is a blank check to one man alone. Somehow, Apostolics believe that God writing a blank check to humans to manage their own affairs is something compatible with the weight of scriptural evidence. I can't even fathom that. As far as I can think of, the Apostolic system matches NO prior human-led systems of governance, and DOES match several examples of failure in that regard. No one has ever explained to me why God would want to turn so much power and authority over to men. In the OT, He said plainly that He didn't like the Apostolic model. Was He getting tired? :)
The Orthodox Church never stopped recognizing Papal authority. The dispute it over the extent of his jurisdiction. But the promise of the "keys" was not given only to +Peter but to all God's chosen Apostles (Mat 18:18).
I don't want to speak for the Latins when I don't know the answer, but I would assume that they would say that the extent of the Pope's jurisdiction was determined by "the Church" under the binding clause. I see that as a real dilemma because we have different branches of the one Holy and Apostilic Church claiming different bindings and loosenings. A further example would be that I would think it very possible to be excommunicated in a Latin Church but be welcome in an Orthodox Church, and vice versa. So, how is anyone to really know which bindings and loosenings are really based on power from God, and which are fake. I mean, if a binding was showed to be wrong, then that would ruin it for all the other bindings, etc. (I would assume.) The credibility would be smashed.
IOW, my obvious point is that the bindings AND loosenings of Latins and Orthodox, in some cases, DIRECTLY CONTRADICT one another. If these powers actually existed, then that would be impossible.
I mean, what a sweet deal for those who hold or want power
Yeah, it could be as you say. There is no check other than God. There is no guarantee other than His promise. You rightly point out potential for abuse, and certainly there are plenty of examples where that potential has been actualized. Of course, it doesn't make the headlines or the history books when it is NOT actualized. Nobody splashes "Catholic Parishioners, Clergy in Love with Jesus" across the top of page one. But out polity encourages us to hold nothing back, to stake everything on God and His promise.
I have to look at our former Bishop, Walter the Pink, and his poorly concealed socialism and "Spirit of Vatican II" discomfort with orthodoxy. I have to engage with "Father Joe" and his bitterness at his own "issues" and his need to re-write the liturgy to suit his notions of how it should be. Protestants like to condemn flowing robes, and let me tell you, if they are polyester adorned with cheap and tacky appliques, I'm right there with you.
But finally, after all the wry comments about the Gospel according to Marx and the abysmal hymnody and the art work which seems to suggest that the resolution of the iconoclastic controversy was that you may have images in church as long as they're banal and meretricious, after all that what this does for me is challenge me to put all my faith, to place all my bets, to stake everything on Jesus.
We are told we are institutionally faithless, but the institution itself in its very structure requires that we trust that, though all we see is the earthen vessel, yet there is treasure in it. There is nothing, not even the Bible, not even the Pope, between us and trusting God.
Protestants say we don't believe in the Bible, that we believe in tradition. I say that sooner or later in the Catholic Church it all comes down to trusting God and Him alone, not the Bible, not tradition as such, just Jesus and His promise, a promise no prudent or wise person would trust unless he were led by a Love which finally trumped his prudence.
Yeah, some power hungry perverts may be ripping me off. I'll take that chance.
Well, if the elect were already filled, then the Great Commission really WOULD be pointless. In fact, the whole Bible itself would be useless to us. The whole faith would be a sham to carry on. IOW, Christianity would be a DEAD faith. So, I don't look at it that way. :) And, despite what I've read others say, neither do any Calvinists believe that the election is already over. I have no idea where that comes from.
Flawless logic, the whole post.. I'm amazed that roman catholic or eastern orthodox followers cannot seem to deduce something so simple to me.. But then I cannot fathom how communist and other types of socialists cannot see thru that flawed system either.. it must be a kind of BLINDness..
The answer is unquestionably "YES". I have discussed this with very reputable Catholic Freepers, and it is also the only logical conclusion if one holds to the view that salvation can be had, but then lost during life, for any reason, and then regained. The Holy Spirit will not reside or abide in the body of a lost soul, at the time. That would be a "serving two masters" dilemma, and we know that doesn't work.
I think I need to correct this. I think it would be better to say that the Holy Spirit's presence within us, His effect, (a spiritual being's presence is noted by their effects, according to most theologians) diminishes to nil IF the "believer" DOES do specific things, namely, those listed in 1 Cor 6:9-10 or Galatians 5. It is possible that the man become "dead" spiritually, because the life of Christ is no longer there, as 1 John states. We become spiritually dead. The Scriptures in Galatians notes the difference between the Spirit-influenced person and the one who is influenced by the flesh. Whether the Spirit actually vacates permanently the person, that's different. IF the Spirit actually left forever, then that person could NEVER repent!!! I don't see God giving up on us and returning to the fold (remember the shepherd parables?). The fact that a sinner CAN repent is proof that the Holy Spirit does not "vacate" entirely those whom He wills.
I hope this clarifies your response.
Regards
Your honesty is breathtaking.. and quite honorable..
Each apostle was given the power to bind and loosen within what would become his particular area of the universal church. The authority of one bishop does not extend to the entire universal church. In dogmatic "binding and loosening" where the entire Church came together at a Council, there is no contradictions. Such things as whether to kneel or not during the Eucharistic prayer are not bindings for the entire Church, but for local churches.
It is as if the apostle Bartholemew decided that Indian Catholics would be bound to kneel during the Eucharistic prayer. This binding does not apply to those Catholics in Jerusalem, as James has bound the church there to stand...(for example).
Regards
"You MUST be born again" -Jesus...
St. Paul didn't seem all that thrilled about it: [1 Corinthians 1:10-17]
Well, I would say that Paul didn't think it HIS role to baptize much, but he didn't have any objection to the practice. I think the explanation is in the very verses you quote. Paul was worried about anyone thinking that he was baptized in the name of Paul and following Paul vs. being baptized in the name of the trilogy and following God. At the time, this seems to me to be a caution worthy of consideration. So, Paul simply had others do it.
All of this is more evidence that water baptism is not salvational. Jesus was baptized by water, and so if it is reasonable that He was setting an example for us, then I think it safe to say that He wants us to be water baptized also. It is a public display of obedience to God, which takes a commitment by the believer to undertake, as we Baptists see it. Paul DID perform a few water baptisms, so that proves that he had no theological issues against it, and that the practice itself WAS proper.
The "word" of the week for me seems to be,"Cast all thy care on Him, for he careth for thee." It's a good star to hitch one's wagon to, uh, to which to hitch one's wagon. ;-)
Yes, with belief comes the Holy Spirit, and afterward it is proper to water baptize.
So shall we say the Holy Spirit was not there when the heart feared but the fears were not yet relieved? Not me. Where is the Holy Spirit NOT present? "If I go down into the pit, you are there."
Whether the Spirit actually vacates permanently the person,...
I think language fails us here, but if I were to accept, so that we could have a conversation, your manner of saying it, I would move to make it "permanently and/or entirely".
Exactly..
This is the line I am trying to figure out. I inferred from Kosta earlier that the binding and loosening power was basically limitless, since no limits appear in those passages. But now it seems that there is a limit as to Judging. Is there any other way you can describe how this line is drawn as to what the Church can and can't do?
I still am not sure why judging wouldn't be included because your priests have the power to declare sins forgiven or NOT. Isn't that really what loosening is? If so, then how is that not the power to judge? If a priest/bishop makes a mistake in refusing to forgive, yet Christ forgives anyway, then your rule is violated because what was loosed on earth was not loosed in Heaven.
I certainly didn't mean to mock you or your parents, I was just riffing on the knots we tie ourselves into when we argue a verse here and a verse there...
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.