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.
Like everything else in the Bible, which has been self-serving, even "justification" for various denomination and cults. It all comes down to personal interpretation. But this one is not some fuzzy ambiguous interpretation. It's actually quite unambiguous.
The fact that some people may have abused or misused this commandment does not invalidate it. But you cleverly avoid answering my question, because there is very little, save for a direct and personal objection to the verse, which obviously offends you. You offer no explanation, only your blanket opposition.
What could "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" possibly mean if not what it says, FK? The Reformed have no problem with God making humans destined for hell, but somehow find it "offensive" and "unjust" that God may have elected some people for a specific task. ?
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
What happened to you, FK? You have changed. How can you make such a statement knowing how patently incorrect it is? The Bible tells us that this is not so, and the promise (the "keys") are given to all the Apostles, and their successors, not only to Peter and his.
We all receive blessings; what we do with them is a different story. Surely, we all agree that blessings may have been abused. That doesn't invalidate the blessings. Breaking the law does not invalidate the law; it condemns the lawbreaker.
Kosta: But the promise of the "keys" was not given only to +Peter but to all God's chosen Apostles (Mat 18:18).
FK: 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 Apostolic Church claiming different bindings and loosenings
With all due respect, FK, you seem to have forgotten everything you once apparently knew about the Church. The binding and loosening has to do with mysteries (sacraments) and not ecclesial matters.
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 am very sorry that you have come a full circle and have completely lost whatever it is that you had when it comes to the knowledge of the Church. For otherwise you could not make such an ignorant statement, and I am sorry that I have to call it that, because it is.
It is exactly through the unbroken sacramental authority of the apostolic sees that both Churches COMPLEMENT each other! It is through the (seven) sacraments (of which ordination of priests is one) that we know we are one and the same Church, regardless of the external differences. It has always been one and has never ceased being one and only Church Christ established, because it is established on sacramental authority given in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
The promise "whatever you bind..." is not a blanket statement to do whatever one wishes, it's not "Bruce Almighty." Rather "Bruce Almighty" is a non-apsotolic indea what it means to be empowered by God. It's a caricature.
If these powers actually existed, then that would be impossible
It's not magic. The "powers" are Christ's promise. Because it offends you, you deny it, even though it is scriptural.
Laws of logic - as with other mathematics and science, such as space and time and physical laws - are part of the Creation, not limitations/descriptions of the Creator.
That a clay pot does not speak does not mean the maker of the clay pot does not speak.
That the clay pot has a certain form does not mean the maker of the clay pot has the same form.
That the clay pot is made of clay does not mean the maker of the clay pot is also made of clay.
and so on...
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matthew 22:29
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. - I Timothy 6:20-21
Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes. - Job 42:1-6
To God be the glory!
Calvin was one sick puppy. Traditions of men? LOL
Traditions of one sick puppy.
You inferred wrong. Christ promised that whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Do you think that includes anything but that which is pure? Do you think that's a blanket authority to do evil? The "power" is in the promise of God and not in some magic wand for men to do as they please.
But now it seems that there is a limit as to Judging
All it means is that the priest must pray and ask the HS to forgive in earnest, knowing that he is a sinner, and not to judge others' sin as greater or lesser than his.
The judgment as to who is righteous and who is not is God's. We can only pray that we be forgiven our repetitive sinning and for God to rescue us from the evil one.
I still am not sure why judging wouldn't be included because your priests have the power to declare sins forgiven or NOT
Because it is scriptural. Repentance brings forgivness.
Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."—Luke 17:3-4
The priest prays that God forgive and, believing in the truth of your repentance, he absolves you. If you deceived the priest then you have brought judgment on yourself and the priest is not to blame. If the priest judged you then he brought judgment on himself. The intent has to be pure.
The binding and loosing has to do with the discipline of the church as a whole, not to just the Apostles. The context is:
Mat 18:15 ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
The practical application is: binding; 1 Cor. 5:1-7, loosing; 2 Cor. 2:1-10.
AG: The above statement applies Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle (either/or) to God - and by doing so anthropomorphizes God into a small "god" the puny, mortal mind can comprehend
Well then we cannot comprehend even the Bible, and that holds for all who claim otherwise, and God's revelation was for naught. He chose, however, we believe, to reveal the perfect in the imperfect language of His imperfect creatures. [Note: How can perfect make imperfect is yet another enigma of our imperfect reason...]
If God can be unchanging and yet changing, if He can repent and not repent, then we might as well throw the Bible away and never quote from it. We might as well simply follow the example of Tolstoy's Three Little Hermits: believe and know nothing else. Yet we all, including you, AG, throw in our own anthropomorphisms to help us along.
So, based on your high-priestess teaching I would expect you to be the last person on these threads to quote from the Bible in order to support your own "understanding" of that which cannot be understood. Yet I see just the opposite. You give one-liners of your own thoughts and a pageful of biblical quotes...
If the Bible is incapable of conveying that which we can comprehend (God cannot be both changing and unchanging), then the Bible is inadequate. It has no purpose. It defeats the arguments of all those who say that God is "logical" because they apply human logic to that statement.
It brings us right to the doorsteps of Orthodoxy, which says we can only know what God is not (apophatic thinking). It scraps all the scolasticism and especially those sects that are based more on lawyering skills then spiritual gifts.
Oh, and by the way, the Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold everywhere in the physical creation either. In wave/particle duality - whether we see a particle or a wave depends on the observer/observation
It's not a matter of observation but of human definition.
The context, BD, is that he was talking only to His disciples.
Among other things.
“The context, BD, is that he was talking only to His disciples.”
Then why does He tell them to take it to the church?
Why does He tell where two of you agree or when two or three are gathered together?
In the following passage, the people to whom Christ is speaking were physically hearing Him - but they were not, indeed they could not, spiritually hear Him:
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4
His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. – Revelation 19:12-13
But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. I Cor 2:10-16
To God be the glory!
That a clay pot does not speak does not mean the maker of the clay pot does not speak.That the clay pot has a certain form does not mean the maker of the clay pot has the same form.
That the clay pot is made of clay does not mean the maker of the clay pot is also made of clay.
Simply outstanding, dearest sister in Christ! God is not bound by the laws of His Creation, including the laws of logic. And I just loved this:
...by the way, the Law of the Excluded Middle does not hold everywhere in the physical creation either. In wave/particle duality - whether we see a particle or a wave depends on the observer/observation.
Such beautiful, astute observations! Thank you so very much!
To God be the glory!
I was confident in your agreement as this theme is not only in our book recently published, "Timothy" - but also in the work in progress, "God and the Observer Problem."
Perhaps we have a way to faithfully read the Holy Scriptures without insisting that they be strictly "logical." That Scripture can be made to conform with reason and logic appeals to the noetically inclined. The thought occurs that this process may have a distorting effect on the proper reception of the message. (For instance, it is well-known in quantum physics that the presence of an observer has a "disturbing" or "distorting" effect on what is being observed.)
But whatever one learns by reading them in this way would not be exhaustive of the Revelation of Holy Scripture (it seems to me), for God's Word is primarily addressed to soul, spirit; only secondarily to mind. Soul is mediated by the Holy Spirit. So let the Spirit lead you, when you read the Holy Scriptures; and just humbly follow along....
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." -- 1 Corinthians 13:12
And every word of God can be understood and reconciled as much as God wants it to be if one is led by the Holy Spirit.
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." -- Proverbs 30:5
In temporal time, when it may seem to us God has "changed His mind," it is in order to further teach us how to live according to His precepts. Yet over-riding this perception is the greater fact that God has ordained the end from the beginning and that He is the First Cause for all things, which is the true focal point for all wisdom and understanding.
Kosta, there is so much truth in Scripture none of us has enough time in our lives to know all that is available for us to know. As much as we learn, there's always something more. But everything we learn contributes to the same, perfect truth -- "His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."
lol. I've lost count how many times that excuse has been used by the RCC (and now you) in order to deprive the sheep of God's assurance, to make His promises only to a select few (the Apostles) and not to every one of His children for all time.
Yep. That perspective makes the good times better (because we know God Himself has given them to us), and it makes the difficult times endurable (because we know that "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.")
Hallowed be His Name!
That's a very good perhaps, though I'm not sure it requires quantum physics to explain it. :)
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.