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.
Ego could be the very reason FOR allegory.. i.e. this divine gambit..
i.e. Outsmarting smart-alecks/clergy/theosophers.. ..
Its all spiritually discerned.. ;)..
[.. -How is an eternal conclusion differentiated from one that is not? ..]
Non eternal conclusions are not eternal...
What is eternal is also spiritually discerned..
Without the Holy Spirit you are up an unsanitary tributary..
I got that all by myself. :)
Its all spiritually discerned..
Perhaps you could offer a little more specificity. How is it discerned?
It would also be helpful if you gave an example of what you would categorize as a ‘greater fact’ in the meaning we are discussing.
thanks..
***”His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
That’s right! Just go with the flow...***
Perhaps he doesn’t believe in Matthew 6, either.
In your spirit.. Spiritual discernment happens in the spirit..
What is the spirit?.. Life.. Human life is in the spirit not in the flesh.. The difference between live DNA and dead DNA is the spirit.. When the spirit goes, DNA dies.. Are carrots alive?.. I suppose.. I'm not smart enough to be a Spiritologist.. I'm cursed or blessed to the Bible.. to know about spiritual things.. even then with the help of the Holy Spirit as much my spirit CAN RECEIVE..
Some people are smarter than me.. some people are smarter than GOD..
Greater than what?.. Science?, Physical science?... Facts greater than scientific fact?..
Spiritual fact(s).. How do you test spiritual fact?..
You cannot.. If you could "faith" would be nonsense..
***You know a loving God would have made things a lot easier for an average dummy to understand and believe. Perhaps that’s what God intended, but then all sorts of egos got in the way.***
Here is why people hear but do not understand: Matthew 13:
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’
These were my questions, that you began proposing answers to here in response to my questions to another poster here.
I thought you were answering because you had the answers. :)
I guess we should just wait together.
I gave you some "answers".. WHo has the last word on anything?.. Can God REPENT?.. i.e. change course?, make course corrections?, be creative?.. start out one way and decide to go another?..
A Robotic all knowing God probably cannot.. You know, like the Buddhistic Robotic God or the strange christian God that some pray mechanical prayers too.. like the buddhists do..
I do hope God is a "lifeform", a living being, not a robotic mechanism.. or force.. or cartoonish Super-hero, or a real one... I don't think I am making God anthromorphic.. How can "he" be my "father" if I cannot relate to "him"?.. i.e. Jesus lesson on how to pray..
Some worry God can be made anthromorphic I on the other hand "worry" that God is being made a "ROBOT", in many cases.. Me being a computer programmer for 40+ years.. will not worship or reverence a ROBOT.. Some christians INDEED worship a Robotic God..
The Great Commission is a commandment FK, not something left up to Southern Baptists to fit to their own taste.
Sure, but the physical performing of commandments is not what saves us. That is, unless you are under the Law for your salvation. If so, then I wish you the best of luck and hope that you get a very high score. I think I'll stick with grace for my salvation. :)
FK: "Baptists see the water baptism as being symbolic of the already accomplished Spirit baptism."
The two must go hand in hand, FK. He said teach all nations (so that they may believe), and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
No problem. We (Baptists) teach that water baptism should ideally be very soon after belief.
This word baptize comes from the Greek word baptiso which, in Greek, means numerous immersions (as opposed to the word bapto, which is a single immersion).
I couldn't find any reference for this. Here is what Strong's says:
NT:907 - baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of NT:911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: KJV - Baptist, baptize, wash.
There is no indication of multiple immersions there. Plus, we both know that scriptures never say or imply triple immersion. In fact, Matt. 3:16 says "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. ...". This would make no sense if He went up and down three times first.
Amen Brother!!
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, (Romans 9:23 KJV)
That is why I carefully nuanced my reply. I said that God, a spiritual being, is present wherever He has an effect. Since God maintains being in existence, technically speaking, He never fully leaves a person. However, His "effect" is drastically limited when we turn away from Him and refuse to repent. Didn't Jesus make that clear to the Pharisees???
Regards
Yes. Maybe, just thinking out loud, it could be that:
- while we cannot properly view the Triune God like a human;
- we can relate more closely to God the Word Incarnate since He shared in our human nature. (which is a key point of the Incarnation).
- we can also relate to the first person of the Trinity;
- the most truthful way we humans can do this is as God the Father.
I believe, and you might agree, that the loving relationship of God the Father is an important part of what Jesus brought to us as the good news - and it was new.
How we relate, or view, God with or without anthropomorphizing is a most interesting question. I know there's a lot more to it than I know.
Thanks for your post..
“Verses 15-17 are about one thing (brother sinning again you). Verse 18 is about something else (Christ’s promise to the Apostles). They are not related.”
That interpretation makes no sense where the sentence is positioned. There were no verse distinctions until 1500 A.D.. When John wrote the passage it was a continuous thought about discipline in the church and the fact if the church puts the unrepentant brother out of fellowship it would be acknowledged and if he repented and they took him back that too would be acknowledged. That thought continues through the next sentences about “where two agree” or “where two or three are gathered”. It is in the body that the loosing and binding takes place just as Paul demonstrated with the man having incestuous relations with his step mother.
Do you count yourself amongst the chosen elite? If so, it makes this philosophy a very tempting and comforting one.
I believe that it was FK (pray correct me if I am wrong) that identified that God may lie to us for His purposes. If so, the eight may not have been the only ones. If not, then He has identified the rest of the world as so wicked that He caused them to perish.
Notice: wicked. It is what they have done, not what they have not done.
Right? I dare say that God has the right to do as He choses. It departs from the Gospels and from much of the Bible, though, to discard the greatest of His creations - man - to roast in hellfire forever for His pleasure.
I’d throw out a bunch of lawyer jokes here, but I’m afraid I’d be sued.
Why don’t lawyers eat Mississippi catfish? Professional courtesy...
Either we have free will or we don’t.
We don’t have part time free will, either time- or otherwise- constrained. If our intended purpose to freely worship God for ever, then we can’t do it if we are robot slaves.
If God made man in His own image, then who of us are not His children?
Are you saying that some of us are not men? Who are we? DEVO?
A man is not a car.
God knew before time what would happen and who would do what and when and why.
Why would God discard men; why would you compare them to cars, when all Christ’s teachings refer to us as children and not mere mechanical creations to be used and discarded at whim?
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.