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.
Why must we tell the Gospel to all?
If God has preordained an individual to Heaven, then he will go. If God has preordained an individual to hell, then he will go. Regardless of who tells whom what at any time. Right?
Under the Reformed doctrine, since nothing we do matters, then it shouldn’t matter what we do.
Let us not mix up the death of the body with eternal hellfire. God might/may physically kill people in order to accomplish His will here, but that is a different thing from condemning them to hell.
How severe a penalty is depends on an individual's perception. It's relative. If the punishment is meant to discourage then is must be applied proportionally.
If it is meant to stop (prevent) a criminal from ever hurting the society then death penalty and lifelong incarceration are equal justice for all.
You should distinguish between discipline and punishment. To me, discipline is for the future and punishment is for the past.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.If judgment could yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness, then God could throw everyone into hell until they have completely repented, then they would be ready for heaven. But we know that it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance. (Romans 2:4)
Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.Seven
It was always the faith of the "heal-ee" not the acumen of the "heal-or" that caused and causes healing.. spiritually.. by the Holy Spirit or Jesus.. Could be the Holy Spirit Could Not/CANNOT heal in certain "venues" because it would link him to the practises "held/performed/sinned" there..
There is many kinds of healing not all physical.. even an epiphany from the Holy Spirit is a kind of healing.. Call it a mental healing.. Example: Even knowing what a messiah is and seeing that Jesus is "that one" is a healing.. Jesus is not MERELY a Super-Hero with a fleshly uniform he much much more.. Actually Jesus' flesh is a metaphor of who and what he really is.. "Jesus" existed long before he put on flesh.. and still does.. Jesus is a Spirit..
So God does not condemn anyone to hell?
How do they end up there?
IF THEY DON'T we are ALL in a lot of trouble.. Lazarus proves they do as does Jesus.. If Jesus can remodel a human body as easy(and quickly) as he did with Lazarus and call Lazarus spirit to re-inhabit it.. Human death is a small thing.. except for the permanence OF IT..
Interesting concept... What IS death?...
Live DNA or dead DNA... Is DNA LIFE?...
What is a demon?..
KOSTA: Dr. E seems to think otherwise. She even knows that her children are among the elect (because, quote "God gave them to" her!)! But, then, no one expects concordance among 33,000-plus man-made "denominations."
It's just not that tricky, Kosta. In fact, it's quite simple to grasp from Scripture.
None of us knows the names of the elect, or we would be God. But we have His assurance that if we have been given Trinitarian faith in His son, Jesus Christ, then we are numbered among His children. That's what Scripture tells us in black and white and that's the understanding the Holy Spirit gives us of those Scriptures.
The rest of the world we can only presume to know. But we have pretty good indicators in the evidence of men's lives (always mindful that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" -- Romans 14:23.) And this learning comes from the lips of Christ Himself, no less...
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." -- Matthew 7:16-18 "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
So again, your argument is with God and Scripture, Kosta, not with those who preach His word.
As far as our children are concerned, Scripture tells us the promise was made to believers and their families since it is God who creates families in the first place. I trust God. Therefore, I trust He will guide my children to Him.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
Is your household clothed in the blood of Christ, Kosta?
Funny thing is, the more a parent believes that to be the way of things, the more it becomes true. Almost like it was supposed to be that way.
Do you have children, Kosta?
But of course they indicate what we are supposed to do. No one says otherwise.
However, we do them knowing the absolute truth that...
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
“To have a any system that is proportional would require the wisdom of Solomon to avoid irony.”
It looks like God is in control of the system. It appears that there is a gradation of punishment in hell, if that is any consolation.
Matt. 11:21-22, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.”
Rev. 20::13, “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”
No. It never occurred to me that I am not.
Have you ever asked the LORD to be one of his?
No. It never occurred to me that I wasn't.
No. It never occurred to me that I wasn't.
Why do you assume you are one of his?
The Bible containes no such statement. On the other hand, maybe your Bible does. Why not, it contains all sorts of other additions...of men.
That's what Scripture tells us in black and white
No it doesn't.
that's the understanding the Holy Spirit gives us of those Scriptures
The Holy Spirit gives us the understanding that we can be severed from Christ and fall again; but it also tells us that if we, want to be with Him, and follow Him, if we persevere, He will never leave us.
But we have pretty good indicators in the evidence of men's lives (always mindful that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" -- Romans 14:23.)
The only problem is what people consider "faith." Judging from the Protestant/Baptist/LDS/others crowd on these forums, anything goes pretty much. As it turns out, even a faith can be a sin.
And this learning comes from the lips of Christ Himself
If had a penny for every one who has a definition of what is good and evil I'd be a multimillionarie. The only problem here is that the verses don't tell us what is good and what is evil, so everyone can make it up. It's a pretty wide brush you are using to narrow down the argument. I think you won't be able to get a clean line in those tight corners.
So again, your argument is with God and Scripture, Kosta, not with those who preach His word
No, I have no argument with Scriptures. They proclaim universal truth, provided one knows what "truth" or in this case "good" is. My argument is with those who read into the Scriptures their own definitions of what is truth or what is good and, worse, who define themselves as possessing the truth and being good.
Is your household clothed in the blood of Christ, Kosta?
My household has been blessed by a priest in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. His Blood was shed for the whole world, inlcuding my household.
Do you have children, Kosta?
I do.
What makes you think it's an assumption?
Kosta.... What is a demon?...
“The Holy Spirit gives us the understanding that we can be severed from Christ and fall again; but it also tells us that if we, want to be with Him, and follow Him, if we persevere, He will never leave us.”
Where do you find that the “Holy Spirit” gives you understanding about anything? It can’t be the scriptures since they are filled with all sorts of additions of men. It can’t be tradition since that is the product of men’s interpretation and error through transmission over the centuries. So just how does the “Holy Spirit” give you understanding and how do you differentiate what you think is the “Holy Spirit” from just your wishful thinking or last night’s “bad sausage”?
MB: God might/may physically kill people in order to accomplish His will here, but that is a different thing from condemning them to hell.
P-M: So God does not condemn anyone to hell? How do they end up there?
Now come on. Follow the bouncing logic. I said that that killing people physically is different than condemning them to hell. God may kill people AND condemn them to hell, but He may all kill people and judge them to be able to enter Heaven.
That is up to His judgement. Okay, then. Judgement. Judgement of what? Judgement of their deeds, as it says in Matt: 25 and most of the Gospels and much of the NT and a fair bit of the Old.
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.