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.
FK: "The Bible says that those who do not believe go to hell."
There are other opinions: ...
There certainly are, and of course the trick is to discover which one is right. Every religion makes its case, I suppose, and God sorts it all out. For this reason I have no idea where the Indian is going. It's not for me to say, but only for God. All I can do is repeat verses like:
Acts 4:12 : Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
I believe this is true, but I have no idea on exactly how God implements this verse. So, it is not for me to declare any specific individual lost or saved.
Now, having said all this, I also do not believe that God is in the eye of the believer. There really is only one true God, and the Bible tells us that MANY will think they believe in the correct God but will be wrong, to their everlasting damnation. It's not fun, but that's the way the Christian God set it up.
Sad, but true. If the Holy Spirit obeys certain men, then who are we to resist?
Yes, exactly. Also:
John 3:8 : The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
After your post here, I answered in a parallel post that you were pinged to. However, I have to say that I have heard a few new (to me) interpretations, that sound reasonable to me, over the last several days, so in truth I haven't actually worked all the way through it yet. I suppose I've spent more time on finding out what it doesn't mean. :)
FK: "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, are God's children NOT ordained to ask forgiveness from their Father directly? I'm still struggling with this. I took your answer to be that it must be a priest because the Church ordained that it must be a priest. Yet, the Bible just tells us to confess our sins and to pray. I can't understand why any man would want to get in between that most intimate relationship.
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...
LOL! Nah, I can't run away from God's word. :) The verse is making a statement of fact, not an offer. It is akin to "If you eat from the tree, then you will surely die". God wasn't trying to make a deal here, He was laying out the facts.
When we read it, and many others like it, they sure sound like offers. There is no denying that. And, that "sound" has certainly had a motivational influence through the ages. People have always understood what it is to bargain, if you do this then I'll do that. Our limited minds can understand that, so it doesn't surprise me at all that the Bible has many examples of this. It makes sense and sounds fair to the human mind. My guess is that most believers continue with this for the rest of their lives. God did His part, they did their part, and it was a fair and square deal. Of course it is not a fatal error, and someday we will all know for sure one way or the other.
Roger and ditto to what FK says.
My attempt at a comment was intended to point out that in addition to the whole faith thing (faith in the sense of trust - fides qua creditur AND in the sense of "what is believed - fides quae creditur") was that the Christian hope is, in our humble opinion, more suited to what a human actually is, what he longs for, what will really satisfy the desires of his heart, what he is made for, etc. So I say again, while the romance of the noble savage (aka "the porr Indian") walking in a peaceful isle, his faithful dog beside him is lovely and beguiling, it does not - again IMHO - begin to be congruent with the true and deepest longing of the human heart.
It's like the whole 72 virgin thing: Like, what are we going to TALK about. Sooner or later you have to have a conversation, y'know? A Conversation? With 72 young ladies?
"Now listen ladies. Could you please stop giggling? We need to talk here. Anybody got an interesting topic? No, the latest style in burkhas is NOT an interesting topic."
Like that's going to happen.
To FK and AG:
As if God could be manipulated. Jeepers
Wait a minute! So you're saying the whole thing where I buy a lottery ticket and then sacrifice a chicken isn't going to work? Darn! I thought it was maybe because I should sacrifice the chicken and THEN buy the lottery ticket ....
Now what am I going to do with all these chickens?
No, you are again missing the root cause, which is that a person doesn't believe because He rejects Christ. You are again placing an artificial duty upon God to give the person the faith to accept, and then you transfer the blame to Him, on my side's behalf of course. It is your side that straps God down to your rules and regulations of fairness, justice, whatever. WE do not do that. A person doesn't believe because He rejects Christ. All of us would be so condemned, but for God, under no obligation from the Apostolic Church or anyone else, choosing to save some.
Of course the welcome (that act of faith, the invitation the believer makes to Christ) is itself enabled by God's grace. It's the distinction between "indwelling" and "influencing", that I need to cogitate on.
Here's a nice sentence from the prayer of consecration in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer:
And here [I would gesture to the gifts - the bread and wine] we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable [that is, able to reason], holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of the Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of the So Jesus Christ, be filled with they grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.Related concept?
He did, the Jews first, and the gentiles also.. Rejecting Christ and the one he left in charge of this planet(Holy Spirit) is the problem.. Rejecting How?.. Rejecting by following men, dogma, and councils of men(clergy).. which is of course SIN.. HIJACKing the Holy Spirits authority.. Which is the ultimate Sin..
WHo then is/are proper "church" human "officials"?..
Those appointed and anointed by the Holy Spirit...
We all were WARNED to be careful of these guys..
To watch them and guard against the hirelings(John ch 10)..
Not ONLY Protestant, RCC and EO posuers.. but other pretenders..
Those NOT appointed and anointed by the Holy Spirit..
How can we tell which is which?..
If you are not careful and watchful, YOU CAN'T..
And can be easily deluded, it takes discernment..
In which case(if fooled) you will then be used like a rented donkey..
Could be thats according to plan..
Perhaps. Or perhaps they're not on cable or performing in tent shows.
Oh, I think in today's times the genuine article would get noticed.
You know, you just reminded me of when I was about 12 years old, long before I became a Christian. Part of my Saturday/Sunday morning entertainment was to watch the Ernest Angley hour. I can't remember a single thing he ever preached, but I sure do remember how he smacked around the sick, yelling and screaming at them. His best move was the open palm slam to the forehead. Knocked them off their feet every time. It was so great because it was just like wrestling, which conveniently was on right after on a different channel. :)
Thats what Buddhists do.. Write down prayers and repeat them over and over again.. They even put them on prayer wheels.. There are different kinds of prayer wheels(i.e.rosary).. or repeated rote prayer.. Prayer to a Robotic God..
The Buddhists actually write down prayers of various kinds even praise and adoration put it on a prayer wheel and let the wind turn the wheel thinking the Robotic God will even hear, know, and care.. The Buddhist God is either a Moron.. or an Appliance..
Some christians do the same thing in essence..
Let us not argue; let us come and reason together. I would rather arrive at a truth than argue for the sake of arguing.
I don’t understand. There is no Scripture that contradicts the concept of the Trinity. The entire concept of the Trinity certainly is derived, and it is derived by the very men whose conclusions and pronouncements are cherry picked by those outside of the Church.
I accept the Bible and the Church’s teaching of who and what God is with my whole heart, mind and soul. I am His creature; He is not mine. That’s why I sometimes get a little irritable when people talk about ‘my God’ and ‘my Scripture reading’, and ‘my religion’ and so on.
Sorry, I digress. :)
I see a huge difference in the tribal warfare and physical killing of the OT and in the Protestant belief of creating the bulk of humanity in order to condemn them to hell.
If we consider evolution as the spontaneous arising of one species from another, this has already been shown in detail in certain plants and viruses in which new has arisen from the old.
If we consider the whole mechanism as proposed from Big Bang through to today, there are as many hypotheses as theories, with a lesser number of facts.
The fish in the non-connected lakes are carried as eggs on the feet of aquatic birds or, less often, mammals.
You know, it’s odd. We are so much on the same wavelength so much of the time.
We Catholics understand that we are not worthy of God and everlasting life with Him. Check.
We Catholics understand that God is forever there holding out His saving Grace to us. Check.
We Catholics understand that God’s saving Grace is ours to accept or deny. Check.
We Catholics understand that God wants all of humanity to accept Him willingly. XXXXX.
We Catholics understand that we can reject God after having accepted Him. XXXXX.
We Catholics understand that God wants us worship Him with all of our hearts, minds and strength. Check.
These posts can be very useful in bringing us together.
Kinda like going to the ballot box in the old Soviet Bloc. Voting levels were roughly 99%; the winning candidate averaged about 99%.
The Gulag had its uses.
The Holy Spirit is to lead us and guide us. There we agree. But He is not to program us to be robot slaves. There, we disagree.
If we do not give God our full and willing worship, it is as meaningless as a note that we programmed that pops up on our PDA telling us how wonderful we are.
God knows the outcome. He is outside Time and has known since before Time began.
I think that where we differ on this matter is what God specifically controls. You look after your children (as I do mine) with much control at first as they mature from relatively noisy, animate and smelly blobs through the motile animal stage and into adulthood, pulling back as they acquire the skills to be able to survive adulthood and eventually to start the cycle once again.
But you do not go in and control every single wave of their limbs; you do not regulate the hormones and enzymes; you do not control the heartbeat; you do not control the motion and direction of the eyes; you do not control the hair follicles.
There is a difference between protection from the elements and dangers and in programmed robot.
I believe that God has given indication of his purpose in creating the universe in the Scriptures. Consider Revelation 4:11:
Revelation 4:11 (NASB)
11 “Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created.”
All things came into being through the will of God. It was God’s pleasure that the universe and everything in it be created. He therefore had a purpose in mind. Isaiah 45:18 tells us:
Isaiah 45:18(NASB)
18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else.
God’s purpose in creating the world was that it might be inhabited. It was therefore God’s desires that the living creatures of the world would bring him pleasure. Psalm 147:10:
Psalm 147:10(NASB)
10 He does not delight in the strength of the horse; He does not take pleasure in the legs of a man.
This verse tells us that God does not derive his pleasure from the strength of horses, or of men, but verse eleven of this same Psalm says:
Psalm 147:11(NASB)
11 The LORD favors those who fear Him, Those who wait for His loving kindness
Here is the purpose of God’s creation .....man. Obedient man. It was only man who was “created in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). All other things were created for man’s use and control. Psalm 8:6-8 tells us:
Psalm 8:6-8(NASB)
6 Thou dost make him to rule over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
This helps us to see God’s purpose. The entire universe was intended by God to be used by man. The Scriptures tell us that even Angels were created for man, Hebrews 1:14:
Heb. 1:14(NASB)
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?
Isaiah 43:7(NASB)
7 Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.”
It is man’s responsibility then to glorify God. That’s what brings God pleasure. That’s why he created us. That was his purpose in creation. But he did not make us without free-will. God does not force himself on man. Can you imagine anyone trying to force you to love them? We were therefore created with moral free-will. We can choose to love God, or we can choose to hate him. We can choose to obey, or disobey.
Before the creation of the world, God knew that man would sin and bring physical death into the world, Rom. 5:12
Rom. 5:12(NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
And so because he knew that man would sin, he provided a savior. God is not only creator, he is Redeemer. He allows man to sin, and provides an atonement for sin when man desires to repent. Joshua 7:19 says:
Joshua 7:19(NASB)
“Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, I implore you, give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and give praise to Him; and tell me now what you have done. Do not hide it from me.”
Here Joshua is telling Achan, who had stolen from God, that he can give glory and praise to God by his repentance. We give glory and praise to God when we accept his atonement for sin in Jesus Christ. He himself has paid the price. Col. 1:19-22:
Colossians 1:19-22(NASB)
19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—
This is what brings God pleasure. The opportunity to reconcile his creation to himself, through obedience to Him.
Romans 5:8-11(NASB)
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
God demonstrates His own love . . . quite a thought. It tells us of his purpose. Remember Luke 15:7?
Luke 15:7(NASB)
7 “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.
God rejoices over our repentance, because ultimately, he wants us to be in his presence for all eternity.
Eph 2:4-7(NASB)
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus,
7 in order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
In the ages to come, in eternity, it’s Gods purpose to continue to display his grace to us. All who have been obedient will know Him in his fullness, and will know with certainty why he created the universe and everything in it.
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.