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.
The child is born with the propensity to sin. That is the mortal wound which can be healed through faith. As to what happens to unbaptized children, we cannot know. With God everything is possible, and we leave the possibility open that He would not destroy a life that did not commit any sins. But that is only our hope.
Good morning, Kosta.
It is not an anthropomorphism, but a metaphor.
I’m truly puzzled why you remain orthodox. You actually align far more with the episcopals (ecusa).
Are you telling us that the leadership in the orthodox movement clandestinely thinks as you do or are you an aberration?
You are right that I don't know a lot about Orthodox teaching. I, like others here, see the fruit of the teaching. If your views are at all representative, then I hope you realize that those views lead someone like me to believe that the teachings are uncomfortable because the foundation seems to be shifting sand.
I'm not making an attack; I'm making an observation.
Elder Cleopa once wrote a short story illustrating this apparent paradox, but I can't find it. The short of it is that we don't know who is guilty and who is not. Outward appearances mean nothing. hey can be as misleading as ever.
The recent revelation of Mother Teresa's inner struggle exemplifies this very well (I am not passing any judgment on her faith or sanctity of her work). Without those letters published, the world would have never assumed that she struggled with faith (which I think she had a lot more of than any one of us).
If I find Elder Cleopa's story I will freepmail it to you.
In fact, if I had become earthly separated from one of my children, I would be most tempted to feel bitterness against God if He WASN'T in control in calling my child home. I would be tempted to be angry at His WEAKNESS.
That's because we give so much importance to this earthy existence; we are too much in love with the world. To God, our lives may not matter in the same way. He may pull us out of this world when we are "done." Maybe those of us who reach ripe old age are the most recalcitrant and sinful of all, "slow" in attaining sanctity, and are given extra time to compete the journey. Some make it other's don't.
The problem (and that explains the anger) is that the west always treated physical death as punishment from God, and not a consequence of our sin. The moment of death for the Orthodox is seen as something occurring in due time. You have arrived at your final destination.
Are you representative of your whole community? Do you believe exactly as all others who belong to your group? Chances are you don't.
What I express are my opinions. But unlike you, I defer the truth to the Church. If my views clash with the Church then I am wrong. In your case, your opinion is your "church."
I suggest you read official Orthodox sites for official views. Wikipedia has a good short summary on "Eastern Orthodox Church."
This is a public forum, like the ones they used to have in ancient Rome, where people came and expressed their views. As far as I know, none of the Orthodox or Catholic posters is acting in an official capacity.
It could be an anthropomorphism as well as a metaphor.
You actually align far more with the episcopals (ecusa)
How so?
Are you telling us that the leadership in the orthodox movement [sic] clandestinely thinks as you do or are you an aberration?
I don't know anybody in the orthodox movement. You must have both me and the "movement" mistaken for somenthing else.
Chances are I don't express the views of the leadership of this movement because I know nothing about such a movement. Buts since you do, maybe you can enlighten us. :)
I prefer horseshoes, tennis, and Risk.
Yes, very well put, MD. By the manufacturer's design, the Christian God is the only one Who can actually reach into the heart of the human to fulfill what he really needs.
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 ....
It's prolly more like God's plan is that we sacrifice the lottery ticket and just buy the chicken. :)
If you mean "whole community" as representing The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, of which I am a member, I am mindful of the doctrines of that community when I post. I am not acting in an official capacity either, but feel my testimony is especially important in a public forum. I feel that I can express my "opinions" that might differ with official church teaching in private conversations.
To each his own.
Well said.. (Good)EO and RCC members faith is in the/their church..
The "reformed" have faith in their opinion of "God"...
Which God?.. you may ask.. that would be a true assessment too.. Which God?..
Do the EO, RCC and "reformed" worship the same God?...
Or are there millions of christian "Gods" like with a Hindu?..
This scenario is why Jesus came to make ALL religion on this planet obsolete, AND DID..
And WHY he said, "Where ever two or three meet together in my name there am I in their midst"..
Thanks Kosta, I see the affinity between RCC, EO, and the "reformed" a little clearer now..
As the seven churchs in asia (Rev.) highlight.. as metaphors..
Excellent point, kosta.
When I post, it is to the best of my ability. I will, however defer to the authority of the Church, as we are instructed by the Bible to do. I’d take it as a personal favour if my friends or worthy opponents on a thread would check my work with the authorities and correct me if I am wrong.
Greater than I have strayed from the faith. If they had been instructed and corrected, they might not have descended into outright heresy.
Well, using the Catholic view, if the Holy Spirit indwells at confirmation, then what happens leading up to that event? I don't know what the normal experience is, but I would imagine that most of the young people actually want to go through the whole process of the experience (classes, etc.). It would occur to me that that would normally be very un-young-person-like. :) At that age I know I wouldn't have had any interest in any faith. For those preparing for confirmation, that would be the influence of the Holy Spirit before He indwells.
Here's a nice sentence from the prayer of consecration in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer: ... Related concept?
Wow, that is a lot to chew on. :) I suppose my initial reaction would be "no" because Jesus specifically said that He would send the comforter BECAUSE He would no longer be "with them". HOWEVER, of course Matthew ends with Jesus telling them He would always be with them until the end of the age. So, at least we can get that part straightened out. :)
Now, another thing I consider is that when the Holy Spirit indwells, I have the mental picture that He isn't renting. :) Once He moves in, that's it. He has taken stake. He closes the seal from the inside, and the seal cannot be broken. As His children, we were bought for a price (1 Cor. 6:19), and underneath the seal it says: "Property of God". :) So, in my conception of it, He never leaves.
But another consideration is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all ONE. So if the Spirit indwells us and is "with us" does that mean that Christ isn't? That doesn't "sound" right, which of course makes the prayer very related. But then I would have no idea how to understand a repeated Communion somehow sustaining an indwelling.
I trust this explains everything in full. No need to thank me, just doing my job. :)
I've said countless times that I know my salvation is sure because I know whom I have believed. As for my children, I trust God that they are among His elect, as I do my husband, according to His promise.
As for the rest of the world, only God knows for certain. But we have clues according to the fruit of each man, whether it be good or evil. And further, we know that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Therefore "good fruit" must first be predicated on Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
So God has given us plenty of evidence to consider. Certainly enough for this world.
Here's a short and solid example of what I consider to be the Scriptural understanding of baptism...
7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming, (Matth. 19: 13,) because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven... ...For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David's was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.""...6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.
I agree with much of your list. And, in the interests of honesty, I would add some comments. On God holding out saving grace, I could "massage" what you said to agree with it, i.e. God holds out the saving grace for the elect from the foundation of the world. Not sure if that still counts as a "check", but I'll take it if it does. :)
On saving grace being ours to accept or deny, we Reformers could not agree to that. That would violate the "I" in TULIP. :) However, most Protestants COULD agree to that.
On rejecting God after accepting Him, I might give that one a check. Our difference is on whether it can normally be permanent or not. However, we also believe that God does, in some cases, take the person home before he loses his salvation. Technically, that might be seen as a permanent rejection "in progress", but not allowed to be completed. That's gotta be worth at least a half a check. :)
These posts can be very useful in bringing us together.
I agree. Most of the time it takes some "mutual nuancing" to agree on some of the language, but I've found that it can be done more often than I would have expected. This is true especially in many of the Patristic writings that Kosta has shared with me.
LOL. No, it's not.
"I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in His word do I hope." -- Psalm 130:5 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple." -- Psalm 19:7
Although maybe Scripture is "vague" for those who come to it veiled by vain repetitions and the traditions of men which could obscure most anything.
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for His word was with power. " -- Luke 4:4;32"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God...
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head.
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.
Well, I would say that when they are helpless, then I control everything that I care about and have the ability to control. So, if my son had become injured and dislocated a shoulder or something, such that he could not raise up his arm without re-injuring it, then I would tie his arm to his side to prevent that. In fact, I'm sure doctors have some device for that very reason.
IMO, it is the same with God, He controls everything He cares about, since we are really "helpless". And, this is a big difference I see in the Catholic vs. Reformed view concerning the parent-child metaphor. I have always gotten the impression that the Catholic Church sees this analogy as being between God and adult children (respect for free will, etc.), whereas, to Reformers it is much closer to the humans being helpless, small children. In my mind, that might help to explain many of our differences.
(Actually, ages ago I could say I'd been on dates when she was definitely right there, but sho' 'nuff not with me....)
Also, it's not entirely facetious to say that Jesus is here "in Spirit".
It looks like the big distinction is irrevocability. It's nice that in Works of Love, if I recall correctly, Kierkegaard says that if you ever don't love God, you never loved Him.
I guess, leaving all theological rigor behind, I want to say something like this. That there is a way in which we know the love of God in our lives, and yet there's a way in which we are always learning it. There is a way in which we show that Christ abides in us, and a way in which we, D.V., become better at showing it and in which we obscure His presence less and less over time. There is, I would maintain, a dynamic aspect to life in Christ. Things change over time, maybe not today, but much later I see that the prayers of my childhood were steps on the journey that led through my... well to all the stuff I've been through since then. And the leading wasn't merely a sequence in time, but there was something LIKE (not identical to, but like) causation.
But in any event, the part of the prayer that was about the relationship between Communion and the indwelling was not the point. Rather is was the "he may dwell in us, and we in Him" that is why I remembered and offered the line.
Golly I'm incoherent today .... More so even than usual!
We certainly are reasoning together.
Now, to business. Splinting a broken arm or nudging or teaching or leading is one thing, controlling every aspect of existence is another.
At what point of control do we attain the robot slave condition? Splinting an arm? Hand feeding? Controlling the heartbeat? Controlling hormone and enzyme levels? Controlling the metabolism of each and every cell in the body? Controlling the splitting / creation of each cell?
Where would the Reformed analogy put the control of the individual by God?
Absolutely right.
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.
In the aforementioned "Patristic way", I can hang with you here. :)
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.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
But he did not make us without free-will. God does not force himself on man.
No. I knew I was pushing it. :)
Can you imagine anyone trying to force you to love them?
I can't imagine an equal adult human trying to do that, however, I can imagine a loving mother causing her child to love her. If you and I have been good Christian parents to our young children, then they will love us, correct? But as they grow up, then anything goes. That is the comparison I would make. In my view, we never reach the comparative stage of adult child. We remain fully dependent.
We give glory and praise to God when we accept his atonement for sin in Jesus Christ. He himself has paid the price.
Amen!
This is what brings God pleasure. The opportunity to reconcile his creation to himself, through obedience to Him.
I suppose I wouldn't call it an "opportunity" so much as a "doing" for His chosen ones. I can't imagine God having a missed opportunity.
God rejoices over our repentance, because ultimately, he wants us to be in his presence for all eternity.
Yes indeed. (See what I mean by the nuancing?) :)
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.
In this I have eternal hope.
P.S. Thank you very much for all the scriptures. :)
Yes, although the elect spend part of their lives not believing. "Reward" is a magic word for us, so we would say the result of belief is Heaven. Rewards are the result of an independent judgment. ...... Reformers do believe that only the elect will go to Heaven. ...... We would say that Jesus came for all of His elect, but not for all humans. The Father does not give all humans to Jesus, but only some. Therefore He cannot have come for all.
Could this mean that the vast bulk of humanity might be able to get to Heaven?
I wouldn't think so with Biblical phrases like "narrow gate" and "many are called but few are chosen".
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.