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.
“Me, I’d trust Him with my kids.”
I do every day along with my grandchildren. but the question still remains “If not God, then who..?” If not God, then how can you trust Him when He does not control their destiny?
Why would you trust a baby-killer with your babies?
If your answer requires that God kills babies in order to fit your theology, perhaps your theology has something foundationally wrong.
Does any one really believe that babies are beyond the control of God? Are they somehow exempt until the age of accountability from being part of God’s plan? When they die does God say “oops, lost another one, gee I wish I could have saved them?” Now that’s defective theology with a God impotent and uncaring.
I would rather entrust my offspring to a God who is holy and righteous and has planned everything accordingly. Then if something happens to my child or grandchild, whether I like it or not, I can trust it was for their good for God was overseeing it.
And if she dies, what would you tell her mother? God killed her?
Or: “It was for their own good?”
Why the innocent suffer and die is a question man has asked for millennia. In addition to scripture, the books exploring the question could fill a library.
The answers: “God killed them.” and “It’s for their own good.” are as likely to make more atheists as Christians.
It’s certainly not what I would call “spreading the Good News.”
“And if she dies, what would you tell her mother? God killed her”
Probably not in those terms but when my first son died during the second trimester my wife’s report was “the Lord took him, blessed be the name of the Lord”. See, unbelievers can’t say that since their only consolation is here and now.
Paul sums it up pretty well: 1Cr 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
I am sorry for your loss. And for the insensitivity of my question.
“I am sorry for your loss. And for the insensitivity of my question.”
Thank you, but don’t apologize, it was a good question, one that we all should bear in mind and be ready to give an answer for the hope that we have.
Thanks, I appreciate your consideration.
The discussion has become to personal for me to continue in this vein.
I can note that the closer it comes to our personal experience, the more it changes.
Towards the Gospel and for the good.
thanks for your posts..
So, all we have to do is figure out if Paul believed in a sure and certain salvation, or in one that could be won and lost throughout life:
Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.
Rom 8:28-30 : 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
2 Tim 1:12 : That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.
2 Tim 4:7-8 : 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
There are more of course, but I think we should be pretty clear now that Paul was assured of his salvation, and did not believe he could lose it in life. In fact, Paul is a prime source for assurance in the Bible.
And what does it take for a mannequin to become your child?
To follow the loose analogy, it would have to be "born again", from a woman.
Did He not come to save the world, FK? next thing you will tell me that means only the "elect."
You read my mind. :) It's either that, or Christ is a failure and did not complete the mission the Father gave Him. It would necessarily mean that Christ FAILED to do the will of the Father. Does that sound likely? :)
The rest of the human refuse doesn't count, right? I can see how racism and slavery were "justified" in the west through the Bible, if one asserts that not all human beings are His children, but only fit for disposal.
Irrelevant. The Bible never says it is our call to make as to who is of the elect, therefore no Biblical argument about the slavery you are talking about can be made.
I don't know the answer to this, so I'll pose it as a question. We are told of the Ethiopian eunuch who was saved, and thus of the elect. Is it safe to assume that he was black?
If we have His life, and we do, then we are His children.
This supports my point. You and I have His life, but the lost do not:
John 6:63 : The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
Do all people "have" the words that Jesus has spoken? No, of course not. Only the saved do. To have them is to have ears to hear and eyes to see. Only the saved are His children.
FK, John 1:11 (one verse earlier) says: "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him." Now, what would "which was his own, but his own did not receive him" possibly mean other than all the people were His children but not all His children accept Him.
In that case go back one MORE verse, and let's put all three together:
John 1:10-12 : 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
Your own explanation PROVES that it cannot be true. If 11 means that all people are His children, THEN no human has ever received Christ, according to your reading of 11. Do you see how your reading has 11 and 12 directly contradicting each other? How can ALL not receive, YET, some receive? That is what you are arguing. The answer is that 10 explains 11. The context of the conversation concerns that Christ created the whole world, therefore all things are His, including His human creations. It doesn't speak to His children, it speaks to His ownership. He owns all people, and His children are separated out of that group in verse 12.
What are you talking about? As a Catholic, do you believe in original sin or not? :)
do you believe in original sin or not?
Kosta and I bat that one back and forth a bit as you'll see - I predict sometime Wednesday..
:)
And is there a "metaphor button" that signlas when we are to read something allegorically and when literally? Or is that up to the reader and whatever "voices" he may hear?
The word in question also means kill (literally).
I'm not sure what you are implying that changed at Pentecost in this regard, but I do agree with you. My position is that the Holy Spirit can affect us whether He is currently indwelling or not.
When presented with "its raining cats and dogs" the one that runs to the window to observe pets falling, is a literalist.. as the one that quoted the metaphor thionks to himself, "Duuuuugh"..
If I'm following you, then I would say that indwelling is a very big deal for us. We see Him as the permanent seal of our salvation, and even further, as a "brand" upon our heart. We are "marked" forever, so that anyone checking can see that we belong to the stable of Christ. :)
As for when the Spirit moves in, there would have to be a welcome, under our view, because true belief immediately preceded it. The believer just got through asking Christ to come into his life to be Lord and Savior, so when the Spirit immediately indwells, it is always a welcome act.
Don't fall for that! Without making light of anyone's loss, the words "the Lord took him" are not the same as "God killed him."
They would have you believe that God created death as well as life. That is a lie Satan wants everyone to believe. God did everything to free us from death. The Holy Spirit is called the Giver of Life, the Comforter. Is that the same "spirit of God" who kills Egyptian firstborn?
The Christ known to the Church is the Christ of the Sermon on the Mount. Not the angry God of the OT or God who creates mankind destined for eternal suffering.
Remember: if it's not comforting it's not from God; it i's not life it's not from God; if you can't find love in it; it's not from God. Killing innocent children is not from God. Death is not from God. Hate is not from God. Loving oneself is not from God.
Do not fall for the satanic deception that makes God the source of good and of evil. Those who have been deceived will tell you that He is.
The only thing your quotes prove is that Apostle Paul said different things to different audiences. There is no doubt that he said you can be severed from Christ and fall from grace, as well as that you can be secure and never fall from grace.
[saying that Christ came to save the world and not just the 'elect'] It would necessarily mean that Christ FAILED to do the will of the Father
I guess that's the part of the Bible the Protestants have rejected, even through it clearly says Christ came to save the world, sinners (all of us, because all are sinners, even the "saved").
Irrelevant. The Bible never says it is our call to make as to who is of the elect
There are many on your side of the divide who claim they very much know who is elect. Dr. E. knows her children are because "God gave them to" her. In other words, God doesn't give reprobate children to elect parents! You are the only one so far who claims not to know who is elect and who is not. I guess that's because you are a newbie Calvinist.
therefore no Biblical argument about the slavery you are talking about can be made
Your history is flawed, dear FK. The west justified slavery precisely through the Bible. various racist doctrines were formed in the west based on the Bible. the whole concept of predestined "elect" and predestined refuse is contrary to the idea of all humans deserving the same dignity, but rather divides people into the select and the rejected, even saying of the reject that God is not their Father (He is not, but by their decision, not His, and yes, when it comes to evil, man thwarts God's will, FK!).
Your own explanation PROVES that it cannot be true
FK verse 10 says the world did not recognize Him. Who were those who later recognized Him? Verse 11 says those who were His own did not receive Him? Who then received Him? All the people of the world are referred to as "His own." But we are not His simply because He created us. We can only be His is we come to Him after he calls us, and if we stay with Him. It is not that God is not the Father of the world, but that the world doesn't in its entirety recognize Him as their Father, rejects Him.
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.