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.
Praise God!!!
Yes, I get the exact same impression. So far, I've been chalking it up to man wanting to always be in control. It seems the Holy Spirit would be the likeliest target for manipulation, since of the Three He is the least understood by most people.
All others pay cash.
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
The Holy Spirit cannot BE manipulated.. lead or duped..
Any that seem to be trying should be marked mentally and watched/monitored..
For whom they are trying to control is YOU..
Okay, then what is your take on the "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven?"
Preaching the Gospel is not binding or loosening. The binding (deo) is to tie, fasten, put under obligation and to loosen (luo) to un-tie, as in dissolving a matrimony...it's a very deliberate act, niot something like preaching.
Why "must" it be the priest who asks for forgiveness?
Because different people have been ordained different roles in the church, and binding and loosening is part of the apostolic clergy. Because God wants the Church to do His work on earth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
So, if the priests in good faith and prayer forgives you, then it is forgiven in heaven as well. That is the promise we know from Mat 18:18.
You quoted: Jer 15:19 (a) : Therefore this is what the Lord says: "If you repent, I will restore you that you may serve me
Sounds like an "if-then" works-based salvation to me. Why are you quoting it? It also leaves the decision to repent to man. Oh, no! Does that mean we are in control? You may wish to retract this verse...
FK: The Bible says that those who do not believe go to hell. That is God's justice, and those people get what they want
FK, you keep using circular logic. Those who don't believe don't believe because God didn't give them the faith according to your (Reformed) theology. So, why, then, are they "condemned" for the lack of faith?
According to your theology, before foundation of the world, God decided He would make a multitude of people of which certain portion will be saved and the rest discarded and sentenced to eternal suffering. That's not the God of the Gospels.
All others pay cash
Those who have cash can show it. You can only talk about it.
Dr. E: You continue to misstate the reformed position, Kosta
Are you saying the Refromed theology does not say that we are born dead in sin and that we are destined to hell, unless born again of the Spirit?
Furthermore, is it not your theology that only those "justified" end up in heaven, or is there a chance that the "justified" also end up in hell?
That was weak..
What accounts, these? How do you conclude that because they didn't, that they couldn't? That isn't indicated anywhere. You are inventing their motives. Wasn't the real point of healings to stir faith in the lost? In all four of your examples, the afflicted one was already a mature follower of Christ. Perhaps they believed it would have been a misuse of power, I don't know. It just seems to me to be too coincidental by half that all of the supernatural powers that the men of the Church have claimed to receive by Apostolic succession just so happen to be all the unprovable ones. :)
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).
No, I assume that they did have the powers and kept them. I don't know if there is any scripture to the contrary, but that they didn't in some cases use thier powers does not cut it as meaning that they couldn't. Remember, Paul counted his affliction as a true blessing. If He healed himself (or was healed by another Apostle) then it would have been to counter God, in his mind.
Obviously those who perform miracles must be the "true" people of God, right?
True Apostles, yes. They performed miracles, and then they died.
+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
Paul was exactly correct. Those who claim to have the powers of the Apostles are FALSE apostles, masquerading. :)
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.
I couldn't base it on that because in today's times, no one, to my knowledge, can reliably heal.
Perhaps. Or perhaps they're not on cable or performing in tent shows.
I'm not precisely sure what you mean by "move". However, I do not think I change God's mind. God has already decided what is going to happen, and already knows on what and how many times I am going to pray about any given thing. That does not negate the value of prayer at all, though. Prayer is communication with God, and He says He wants that communication. Regardless of the outcome of the object of the prayer (e.g., my aunt Ethel lives or dies), I am always better off for having made the prayer.
Are your prayers answered?
Yes, the three general categories of responses are "yes", "no", or "wait". Of course, there are variations on each.
Are you now managing God, if that is the case?
I don't know what you mean here. It wouldn't occur to me to "manage" God in the normal sense.
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). (emphasis added)
Then I'm afraid I do not understand the standard answer. I could follow the reasoning if you said that God gave in equal portions to everyone because God doesn't play favorites. However, it seems to me you are making a proportion argument, that God gives to everyone based on some sort of criteria, you said what "they are capable of". (What does that mean, BTW? :)
[This idea is bolstered by your final statement: "So, when God gives 'equally' to everyone, it is "equal" in the just way, affecting each equally, not quantity-wise."]
Anyway, this fails if we also say that rich men are less likely to go to Heaven because according to you, God would have compensated for their wealth-seeking propensities in order to be proportional with everyone else. Isn't that right? IOW, if the standard answer was correct, and God was truly proportional in distributing His grace to everyone based on what they could handle, THEN we should expect to see as many rich men in Heaven as from any other type of demographic.
Of course I'm assuming that your meaning is that those in the greater need can "handle" more grace. (?) Please correct me if I am wrong, but that would seem to be the only interpretation if everyone has a fair shot at getting into Heaven.
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.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Seven that this isn't Biblical. The punishment for sin is the same for all. PLUS, you are arguing for a progressive criminal justice system. Is that REALLY what you would like to see??? :) Under your system, the transient who commits murder would get a much lighter sentence because his time and liberty would be considered "worth less" than the same time and liberty to an honest, hardworking taxpayer with a family. Is that your idea of justice?
You simply CANNOT means-test criminal law. The result would be that those with the least would be encouraged to commit the most crime because the penalties would be less. I don't think they need any more incentive. :) That is squarely against public policy and is partly why that is not our system now.
So would a lot of people but then it would be proof rather than faith.
Well, Christ certainly went all over the place, performing many miracles. Why? Wasn't it to offer "proof" that He was Who He said He was? To me, faith is obviously the only thing that matters, but it just seems to me that proof by signs is "one tool" that can be used to foster that inner growing faith. I think of Thomas. Here is the money verse:
John 20:29 : Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
This is clear to me that Jesus used physical proof to cause belief, IN THIS CASE, making it, at least legitimate.
And a valid theory is one that has facts to support it.
What you are talking about is not 'theory' but a paradigm, which organizes facts into a contextual system of thought.
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.