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.
Thank you so much for the wonderful scriptures, AG!
Among Dr. E., Mark, and myself, I'm not sure if we are going to be able to be in full agreement here, but as a gesture of friendship and open-mindedness, I will go so far as to say that at least two of us can be. :)
Religious lying demons are cast out daily from some..
Idolotrous lying demons are cast of others..
Even demons that are imposters of the Holy Spirit are cast out..
Some christian religion is wholly a pagan scam, a lie..
Some are POSSESSED from their youth by this/these DEMONS..
That entered them by catechesis..
“We can all say that we know “love.”
Who Said Anything About Love?
What I said was “A work of Grace in the soul discovereth itself, either to him that hath it, or to standers-by.”
To others it is thus discovered:
1. By an experimental confession of his Faith in Christ. (Romans 10:10, Phil. 1:27, Matt. 5:19)
2. By a life answerable to that confession, to wit, a life of holiness, heart-holiness, family-holiness, (if he hath a Family) and by conversation-holiness, in the World; which in the general teacheth him, inwardly to abhor his sin, and himself for that in secret, to suppress it in his Family, and to promote holiness in the World; not by talk only, as an hypocrite or talkative person may do, but by a practical subjection, in Faith and Love, to the power of the Word: (John 14:15, Psalm 50:23, Job 42:5-6, Ezek. 20:43).
There's always hindsight, we never are totally aware of all factors and motivations. But if you're saying we can't trust our experience, that it's not real, but an illusion..
Then I can just as validly say: "Actually, FK, you experience your free will now as an illusion, as God's will, but that's just your 'experience' of it." And, of course we can't place any reality in that.
It might as well all be a dream.
Your position fails in a performance contradiction: Your experience proves you can't trust your experience.
COOL!!! I am DEFINITELY going to have to rent that movie again now that I'm a Calvinist. :)
Isn't it GLORIOUS!
There was nothing and with a thought it all began. I can't imagine the awe of being near the creator of all things.
I, of course, do think that Christianity is right, Judaism is partially right, and the rest are wrong.
Within Christianity the various denominations all contain Christians, imho, and whatever share of tares is their lot.
Me: "Who that has been created since Adam is "innocent" in God's eyes?"
You: "Um, I think you're illustrating my point."
Then I'm confused. I was focusing on the word "innocent", and meant that God does not kill innocent children, because, there ARE NO innocent children, in the relevant sense here. We hold that God determines the day of our conception and the day of our death. How would you say those things are determined, if at all? Are they just the happenstance of life?
That's a great point. The individual first comes to belief then recognition of their fallen state.
However, our EO and RC FRiends believe their priests can place the Holy Spirit into the infant at Baptism, by those magical powers they claim to have. So they would by their mystical powers force the Holy Spirit into someone who has not believed yet and repented. Doesn't seem consistent with SCRIPTURE.
In the end we both know it all gets down to their claim everybody must do and believe what they say.
In fact, as a Baptist, I do not even scream bloody murder at triple dunking. I wouldn't say "that counts as three baptisms, so it's no good", or something like that. If you want to triple dunk at one time, then go for it. I won't call you names.
You mean you won't put to death other Christians because they insist that a person must first BELIEVE and REPENT before being baptized. ;-0
Your argument is against Scripture...again. Jesus Christ tells us a good tree will produce good fruit, and a corrupt tree will produce evil fruit.
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -- Matthew 7:16-20 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Again, as Christ tells us, "good works" are the evidence of our faith, not a requirement for it.
What is in question is not this fact, given to us by Christ Himself, but in what actually makes up "good fruit" and "evil fruit."
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20
Further, we have Paul telling us that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)
So we can conclude that good fruits, done by and for and through the faith of Jesus Christ, are indeed "good" because they are according to the will of God...
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Which again points to the startling lack of faith Mother Teresa somehow evidenced for the last 40 years of her life and may explain why she was able to (wrongly) preach the validity of Hinduism. And so we may conclude that her acts of charity were empty (even for herself, evidently) because they were not done "by faith."
These are the "rules" God set down in Scripture, Kosta. Your argument continues to be with Him, not with those who preach His word.
As I was reading Isaiah 5 for the above quote, I found this verse. Is there any writing as beautiful as the King James Bible?
And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands. Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled: But the LORD of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness. Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones shall strangers eat. Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope" -- Isaiah 5:11-18"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!
"...them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity..."
"Vanity, definitely my favorite sin." -- Al Pacino as Satan in "The Devil's Advocate."
Still illustrating the point of how key this plank is in TULIP.
It's so fundamental that you miss seeing the concept that God does not kill innocent children, because God does not kill innocent children.
Nonsense. Her letters confirm the fact that what she did for over 40 years was not "of faith," and thus she was comfortable preaching "another Gospel."
In the end, Mother Teresa was remarkably consistent.
The next trick is how God avoids a millstone around His neck.
Amen! And further, how can anything be stronger or more reassuring than the words of Christ Himself?
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" -- Luke 11:9-13 "And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
And the promise and assurance and certainty just keep on coming to those who have been given ears to hear His word...
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." -- Hebrews 9:14-15"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
I mean this in all sincerity. I do respect you intellect, just not your conclusions.
Have you ever just gone off by yourself and prayed to our LORD and asked him to reveal to you whether you are one of his?
Of course the stock answer is that "the poor Indian" has a defect of hope, a kind of despair, technically speaking. The hope of a happy hunting grounds with the faithful dog at one's side is a meager one compared to the hope of near-godly status enjoyed in ever increasing union with the font of life, Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice and every good thing.
For us, the moment when cold beer first runs down a parched and salty throat, when thirst well-earned meets its perfectly apt assuaging is rare and instantaneous. The next gulp of beer, while admittedly excellent, is not so perfect as that cool bitterness washing away the salt dust in a parched throat.
The promise we look for is the eternal meeting of longing with satisfaction - never an unmet need, and never statiation or cloy, but for ever the meeting of human need and Divine supply.
Pope is attractive but wrong, and just as we say that there is something wrong with a man in his prime who cannot read, so we find in "the poor Indian" not vice, but undeveloped virtue and attenuated and asthenic hope.
Not that having my faithful dog bear me company is bad -- not at all. But I, dog that I am, look for my master to allow me in faith to bear HIM company, and to make me ever more like Him.
You raise an interesting point that gets discussed a great deal. I believe you will not find in the New Testament any instructions to go out and kill those who do not believe as you do. The New Testament instructs Christians to preach the gospel.
It was the politically controlled organizations that pursued the practice of killing those who refused to believe as they wanted. In Christianity those churches that were as much political organizations as religious have been neutered. The current example of a religion as a political entity is Islam.
Weakness is relative.
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.