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.
Interesting essay.
It could mean that the universe was set up for us to have these particular bodies or else that our bodies were designed for this particular universe.
The condemnation of the bulk of humanity is not limited to the innocent newborns, according to Reformed theology. There is a casting of the Heavenly lots, or some other methodology, so that the soul is preprogrammed to either heaven or hell before birth.
The inventor of this particular gem set up his own theocratic tyranny in Geneva, where he put his harsh beliefs into practice and those opposing him to violent death.
There were some examples brought up of God misleading man in the OT. I apologize for mistakenly applying them to you.
It is interesting that some will display the verses that say that the reward for belief is Heaven. Others will display the verses that say that the elect only will get to Heaven. Others will display the verses that say that Jesus came for all men. Does that mean that the elect only have belief and all others disbelieve?
Could this mean that the vast bulk of humanity might be able to get to Heaven?
It might be a wonderful idea, but I think that it violates the whole free will thing. If your worship is coerced in any way, shape or fashion, then it is null and void and worth nothing.
The Reformers were heretics who set up their own religions. I cannot possibly blame them for the current state of the Church, no, of course not.
As a matter of fact, after Vatican II, many of the new Catholic reformers started the Protestantization of the Latin Church, much to the dismay of the East. That is our fault, and not the Reformers. I do blame the Reformers for (and it is entirely my responsibility that I was not clear enough) creating a mindset that one could set up one’s own religion for one’s own reasons and that it could be done fairly easily, especially as new ones kept getting created. It became easier and easier to do.
Look at the religions created over time.
Reformation: Lutherans, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Presbyterians. Fairly solid and somewhat reminiscent of what they copied.
Restoration: Stone-Campbell churches, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Christian Science.
20th Century: Snake handlers, World Wide Church of God, United Unitarian Universalists, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones/ Jonestown; Urantians (who believe Jesus was an ET), various white supremacist “Christian” groups, Children of God (COG)/Family of Love/Heaven’s Magic, Order of the Solar Temple, and so on.
As we progress, the scope and imagination of the founders get progressively scary.
The difference, I suspect, in how their souls will be judged is the difference that God may attribute to either forming a new religion or committing evil in the one that He created. There may be no difference; there may be some. All that I can do is to concentrate on those who do evil within the confines of the Catholic faith and deal with them.
I find it hard to read the Gospels and conclude any different.
How does your prayer result in communication but is not worthy of anything else? What does the communication consist of? Do you not participate in prayer chains? Do you not ask God to do this, to help you with that, or to alleviate the other?
Our Father, who are in Heaven, hallowed be thy name: worship.
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven: all creation is His, and we strive to do His will.
Give us this day our daily bread: a little asking - now what use is that?
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us - a promise to do, to act, and further asking Him to grant us something - of what use is that?
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. - more asking. This is not communication only, this is worship and asking Him to help us. I don’t believe that this sits very comfortably with Calvin’s beliefs.
To begin with, we’re damaged goods, thanks to the actions (!) of Adam and Eve. Then, we damage ourselves even more through our own commissions and omissions.
We are dead to the Spirit until He comes upon us; but I don’t believe that we are entirely Spiritually unaware. Even little babies waiting to be born see and hear and feel. I don’t believe that I’ve seen Biblical evidence that we are entirely unaware.
And, of course, there is a huge difference between open- and empty-. :)
Our priests do no placing. They merely follow the examples of the early Bishops with the laying on of hands. Did they force the Holy Spirit? Did they order Him around?
Ain’t no forcing of the Holy Spirit; we merely do as we are instructed. If we were instructed to gather together in a room and receive the Holy Spirit, then we’d do that.
I understand that if a Calvinist follows our Biblically instructed procedures, then the thin Reformed ice gets a little thinner. That’s the trouble with reinventing the wheel and losing some of the information involved. You just may wind up with an octagonal wheel with the hub off center.
Ahh, just hold ‘em under until they say “Uncle.”
1 Co 15:
12
But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?
13
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised.
14
And if Christ has not been raised, then empty (too) is our preaching; empty, too, your faith.
15
Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised.
16
For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised,
17
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.
18
Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.
20
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21
For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
22
For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life.
Context, context, context. I am sorry for your loss; but this passage refers to what Jesus opened up for us. All shall be brought to life.
I would read this as the fact that we are all owned creatures of Him; but when we make the decision to receive Him, we are elevated beyond our former state.
Prior to the Pentecost the Holy Spirit made His work on an extraordinary basis, and at Pentecost the promise of Christ to send the Paraclete to His Church was fulfilled, and the extraordinary presence became ordinary indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
100% in Reformed God's case. They would have you believe that even our sin is not thwarting God's will...but doing it. To them, God is the source of life and death, good and evil.
And they say being a Mormon is a cult?
Based on your posts, you are...the only one.
Beam in the eye, and all that.
Goodness, FK, I am beginning to believe that you really can't see the folly in your own words, no offense intended. If they don't believe (i.e. If they "experience" that they are rejecting Chirst) it is by God's will and not their own according to the Reformed theology.
So, in reality, they are not rejecting Christ, but are forced by God to reject Christ (even though they "experience"—rather they are being deceived, by whom, by God?—that it is by their free will).
If God is in control and we have no free will then God moves us and God makes our decisions; we are puppets and He is the puppet master. All the strings are His. And what we do is strict obedience to God's will, no matter if it's good or evil.
You "figured out" that in the case of Pharaoh all he had to do is let Pharaoh to his own devices and he knew the Pharaoh would not relent. But that flies in the face of your Reformed theology.
If God is always in control, then we can't do anything on our own, whether it's good or evil. The sin of omission is not an option here. Puppets on the string do nothing unless the puppet master pulls their strings.
But the Bible says that God specifically hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that he would not relent. So, it was not the Pharaoh's own decision, but God's. By this logic, Judas and Hitler were simply obedient God's servants.
This is not the Christ we know from the Gospels. In your faith, the only root cause if God, even of evil. In Catholic/Orthodox Churches God did not create sin, death and evil. He did not ordain it. God is Life; He gives and creates life. God did not create death. Death is corruption. God creates nothing that is corrupt.
I see...
So, are God's children NOT ordained to ask forgiveness from their Father directly? I'm still struggling with this. Why? Don't you ask for forgiveness in "Our Father..."? We can ask, provided we have forgiven those who trespassed against us.
Yet, the Bible just tells us to confess our sins and to pray
The Bible tells us to confess to others. Confessing to God directly is like loving those who love you; no big deal.
Kosta to FK: 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
FK: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"
If-then is a conditional statement no matter how you look at it. A statement of what would have been "when you eat [in other words: you will eat] from the tree you're dead!"
In Jer 15:19, like in Genesis and numerous other places in the Bible, man's free will is affirmed by these "if-then" statements. We condemn ourselves when given a clear chocie and knowingly choose to oppose God. Otherwise, the cocept of sin is meaningless.
The phrase means God hardened pharaohs heart by challenging him..
NOT by any divine magic or CURSE...
Happens on THIS THREAD all the time..
Challenge an "UNbeliever" and it just hardens them to be more recalcitrant..
When in another setting they would just declare, "I never looked it that way before"..
You've jumped to a conclusion that does NOT follow..
Future tense here does not mean it WILL happen it means it MAY HAPPEN..
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.