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.
Where does this rule come from? It sounds like you are saying that man cannot have been born depraved because then he could not be accountable. The reason for that is that it wouldn't be fair by your human standards. It is perfectly fair DESPITE your human standards. I have explained the false duty that your side places on God to provide the means to all to be saved. For some reason your side believes that God OWES you the chance to be saved. That is a man-made rule based on man's idea of "fair". For Apostolics, if God creates, then He accepts a responsibility and obligation to treat them in a certain way that His creation deems just. Our side places no such duty and obligation upon God, and neither do the scriptures.
The real question is: who makes our choices? Our will or God's will. The Reformed say it's God's will. That means we have no will of our own, and therefore can neither sin nor be accountable for sin.
Kosta, you have said before that you believe in a limited free will. That's what we say too, just in a different way than you. For example, we say that before salvation we have free will, but that will always chooses against God in result. It's free, but it is limited, just like you have said. After salvation, we have the free will to do good for God. We are set free. The good that we do is God working through us.
You don't seem to want to entertain the idea that both wills are in action at the same time, with God's will being controlling. I don't see anything contradictory in this. (See below)
The Reformed state that what and where we are is God's doing. If we are pots and God is the potter, how can pots be accountable?
Yes, all that we are, and where we are, is all God's doing. That is true. Thanks be to God. ...... God created us and assigned accountability to us by His standards. He did not assign accountability to Himself by our standards. Thus, if He creates a pot and just doesn't like it, say, because it's too short, He can smash it (hold it accountable for displeasing Him). Did He have a duty to try to re-make it by adding more clay? Apostolics would say "YES", God had a duty, because that would be the only fair thing from the pot's POV (which is all that matters). God had no right to create, unless He gave every pot a fair chance to be tall enough, etc. We would say "NO", God had no duty, God was free to do as He wished.
In the Reformed view, then, when we pray we pray because God wants us to pray. And when we sin we sin because God wants us to sin. So, then, when people murder, rape, molest children, etc. whose will is it?....you get the drift.
God is the first cause of all things, and He ordained that there was going to be evil in the world. In fact, He let it in, and then it infected man. God didn't have to do that. God could have had the garden thing going for everyone all the way up until today. But that's not what He wanted. So, for the exact same event, the BIG one, it was God's will that sin come into the world, and it was Adam's will to eat that tasty looking apple. Same event, with two different wills acting for different reasons. That's how Adam is accountable and God is in control.
Superb phrase. So thankful I ran across it.
It always comes back to the powers forever transferred through Apostolic succession. On that reliance I know you'll go to Acts 8 to say the Bible authorizes this. So, if there is anything wrong with the original interpretation, made by Apostolics who were to receive these powers, then the Holy Spirit via laying on of hands interpretation, along with a hundred others would all be wrong. As I postulated earlier, it seems that almost all of our differences really come down to that one interpretation.
BTW, I can't remember if I have ever asked you this, but since it's on topic, can you explain why so many of the Apostles' powers were transferred, but curiously, the power to physically heal was not? I have said before that if all Apostolic priests and/or Bishops could heal, and no one else could, then I would probably convert instantly.
Indeed, Christ gives the Apostles the power to "[h]eal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons."--Mat 10:8
And after He left, the Apostles are said to have continued to use these healing powers. +Peter's shadow was enough to heal the sick, as were +Paul's napkins. These were the Apostolic "sign gifts" that identified them as Apostles.
However, as time progressed, the Apostles could no longer heal by all accounts. +Paul doesn't heal Timothy's stomach problems (1 Tim 5:23), but offers him more of a "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" advice. +Paul also could not heal his friend (Phlp 2:26-27), but instead says that "God had mercy on him." Nor could +Paul heal himself (Galatians 4:13-15, 2 Corinthians 12:7-9).
Using your standards of "proof" then you should immediately dismiss +Paul as credible authority because he (and all the Apostles) eventually lost the power of miracles (assuming they had them to begin with).
Some would tell you that this was because the Church was beginning to take over the pastoral role of caring for the souls and well being of the faithful as the NT was being completed. But the Church did not inherit the "sign gifts" of the early Apostles. Rather the Apostles lost them before they died. Does that mean, the loss invalidated the Apostles authority and the Church to which their "keys" were transferred?
Relying on miracles is a double-edged sword. We could even use miracles as a standard measure by which we can prove that the Church failed, as you seem to imply: "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders"--2 Thess 2:9
Obviously those who perform miracles must be the "true" people of God, right? After all, the whole Bible is based on miracles and counter-miracles, God and Satan vying for a vote of confidence.
+Paul warns us (was it because his own healing powers were slipping?): "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness"--2 Cor 11:13-15
So, if you base your 'conversion' on who can heal and who can't, you are just as likely to believe Satan as you are God.
Thanks for the reply. I did a little more looking around and found this:
Of man it is said that he was “made a little lower than the angel” (Heb. 2:7). Angels are said to be greater than man in might (2 Pet. 2:11). Their superior power is also implied in Matt. 26:53; 28:2; 2 Thess. 1:7. Yet angels are ministering servants to believers (Heb. 1:14), and shall be judged by them (1 Cor. 6:3). This last fact would seem to indicate that man, though now inferior in nature to angels, shall in his glorified state, as a trophy of God’s redeeming grace, be exalted with Christ far above angels (Eph. 1:20,21; Phil 2:6-9).
But one does not follow the other directly.
Doesn’t that seem like a non sequitur?
Do you believe that you move God with your prayers? Are your prayers answered? Are you now managing God, if that is the case?
As you surmised, there is a differentiation between our interpretation and the individualist interpretations.
As to the healing powers not being passed on after the first generation of disciples, I’m not sure. There have been scattered individuals who could apparently heal throughout the centuries - most of the reports were necessarily fraudulent. Perhaps somebody could chip in here.
I hadn’t read your post yet re: healing.
Thank you .30Carbine. You are very kind in trying to find goodness even in failure to stand firm. +Jude reminds us to be merciful to those who doubt (cf Jude 1:22). Even the Lord reminds that we should seek in order to find (cf Mat 7:7). Even the Apostles doubted in the presence of the Lord.
Doubt comes whenever human hands and human words are used to account for something. Blanket acceptance of human works is foolish. Even Satan can perform miracles.
Trouble is, the Scriptures have been touched and altered by so many hands and no originals exist to compare our copies to, that one can never assume and believe fully that any verse in the Bible has been there from the beginning.
That is an excellent summary of Apostolic angeology. Angels were not created in God's image and likeness. They were never given a dominion.
It's still there, but you won't find it on the Binny Hinn channel.
:)
One more thing regarding the "powers." They are limited to sacraments, or God's mysteries, such as the Eucharist, Marriage, Ordination, Baptism, etc. where the Holy Spirit affects the change. They are in syngery with God. Thus "whatever you bind..." is necessarily limited to good choices because evil choices are not a choice in God's realm.
So, faith is not a belief?
And what about Incarnation and Resurrection and apostolic miracles? You believe that? Just where do you draw the line? Where ever it suits you?
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:1-9
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches:
He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5
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 them, I raised the story of Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit without laying on of hands, baptism or even Peter finishing telling him the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The story is repeated three times signifying its importance – that the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted by the will and power of God alone.
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? – Acts 11:15-17
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. – Acts 15:1
Giving God the glory (hallowed be thy Name) - loving Him above all else - should be as easy and natural to us Christians as breathing - but with some of my correspondents it was like pulling teeth. But others quickly affirmed the power and will of God, i.e. that no one and no thing has authority over God.
Tragically, theological infighting often overshadows the Great Commandment and the Lord's Prayer. Nevertheless I will continue my mantra:
Love God surpassingly above all else, believe Him, trust Him and follow Him.
Looking forward to your reply…
The standard answer is that God gives to each what He knows they are capable of (the talents). The failure to realize the talents given is to our condemnation because we are to give to others what was freely given to us and because we must not love the world. We cannot serve two masters, and money is the source of all evil.
That's why it will be harder for the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (which is a mistranslation, by the way).
If you make $500K a year, have no kids, or debt, a $50 ticket you get for illegal parking is pocket change. But if you make $25K a year, have four kids and mortgage and credit card payments, a $50 ticket is a big deal. In order for the fine to be "just" the rich man needs to pay more. Otherwise the punishment is unequal and unequal punishment is unequal justice.
So, when God gives 'equally' to everyone, it is "equal" in the just way, affecting each equally, not quantity-wise.
So would a lot of people but then it would be proof rather than faith.
Religion made just right for man, by man.
I believe that it was FK (pray correct me if I am wrong) that identified that God may lie to us for His purposes
Of course, it's in the OT, among other things God does, such as genocide...killing of the firtsborn, etc.
Notice: wicked. It is what they have done, not what they have not done
Yeah, but they will tell you they would have done it if they had lived. They were wicked even if they didn't do it yet. Even the animals God drowned.
I dare say that God has the right to do as He choses. It departs from the Gospels and from much of the Bible
But to some sects and cults the Gospels are merely another part of the Bible, so the Bible is interpreted not in the light of the Gospels but by the preponderance of material. For some Protestants, the NT means re-interpreted +Paul more than Gospels. The rest of the books are "auxilliary" sources.
When confronted, they will tell you the reason is that his letters reresent most of the NT. So it's quantity that counts?
Taken in such light, the OT weights in much more porminently in Protestant sects and cults than the NT, never mind the Gospels. It's obvious that the NT and Gospels in aprticular represent a miniscule portion of the whole bible compared to the OT.
In fact they are appalled that the Apostolic Church considers +Paul's Epistles seondary to the Gospels, that only the Gospels stand on the altar, that only ordained ministers (priests, deacons) can read the Gospels, while +Paul's Epistle's are read by laity and are not on the altar.
It's not the same faith, us and them, Mark. It only bears the same labels. Even what they call "scriptures" is not the same.
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.