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.
That's certainly been my impression from a lot of Kosta's posts, especially the ones that say Scripture only speaks in generalities and not specifics.
Maybe he's reading another Gospel. My Bible is quite specific.
The choice is in obeying God or not. God will never lose one whom he calls a child. We can sin, and we often do, but we cannot lose the love of God once he has chosen us. The choice is to obey or not obey.
Kind of hard to speak in generalities about ultimate questions like salvation, especially when Paul says “I know whom I have believed....”
What is interesting is that it won’t be the church or the church fathers who will stand as advocates with those who trusted them in their interpretation and who must give account of their salvation; but just the individual and he won’t be able to blame any error in belief on the church or the “fathers”.
Hebrews 1:1-3 says, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”
Mat 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him
Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts
It is the sure word of prophecy that we have we are accountable for, not what some other man says.
lol. Is that a difficult question for you, Kosta? Just what's in your Bible?
"And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it." -- 2 John 1:6
That is how the creature displays love for the Creator which is the first and primary love of our lives.
Further, Christ tells us what love is between men...
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." -- John 15:12-13"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
So Scripture gives you your answer, Kosta. And it's certainly not generalized, but quite specific. For men, love is doing God's will and caring for the welfare of another over yourself. Both these things were accomplished by Christ to illustrate exactly what love is.
And further, since whenever I search the Scriptures I find even more than I desired, look at what else Christ says...
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." -- John 15:3
Do you think Christ is speaking in generalities here, or is He specifically telling believers that He, the very word of God, has cleansed them of their sins?
I would say that ‘faith’ is normally measured against the norms of the religion and that ‘religion’ is the sum total of the beliefs contained within that particular belief set.
The extent of the diversion of the Protestants from Christianity to that point leads me to believe that new religions were in fact created.
We were responsible, to a large extent, for the Reformation because we were not paying enough attention to the things that matter and allowed Luther, Zwingli and Calvin to accomplish their nefarious deeds. Now they, in turn, are responsible for their own particular deeds.
But we are responsible for allowing the climate to exist where those deeds could, in fact, be done.
If they are ordained, then how are they ordained? What would happen if you forsook all prayers from this moment forward? Would you still attain Heaven? Would your place in Heaven be diminished?
The Calvinistic approach really doesn’t make sense to me since prayer consists of such things as asking for God’s help, and since nothing that we do matters, then what does asking for God’s help accomplish?
If prayer is for our benefit only and has no relation to God and His actions, and it is a reminder to us only of what He does for us, then why ask Him for things, why not simply use prayer as worship. It makes no sense.
Wow. Where do I start?
Does that mean that all those who have been chosen for hell have been created to be destroyed?
Does that mean that all those who have been chosen for heaven have a free choice to reject heaven?
Only children of God have free will?
The children that are not of God have no free will and are mere refuse to be tortured forever in the everlasting fires of hell?
Your Bible may be quite specific.
But it may have been written for political value - the KJV certainly was.
And, its interpretation is usually off the mark.
That’s one of the benefits of the Magisterium. It eliminates the heresies even of the theological giants.
The interpretation of the Gospels and of the whole of Scripture has been increasingly diverse as the heresies of men increase.
And how can the word of God cleanse all men of their sin when the Reformed claim that the bulk of them will wind up in the everlasting fires of hell and there’s nothing that they can do about it?
What is Hell?..
A lake of fire consuming flesh in a spiritual place or a metaphor for something else?..
What is heaven?..
A paradise for the flesh in a spiritual place or a metaphor for something else?..
Are you heading East?
Well, congratulations. This is great news. What was the final straw that broke your theological camel’s back?
All right, hoser.
I’m irritated enough to ask you just what the hell you are talking about.
Just say you have no clue to the questions...
Unless you are a drama queen..
They were honest questions..
I knew that I shouldn’t have tipped that rock over to see what slithered out.
According to Scripture, if one is in hell, “he shall be tormented with fire and sulfur . . . the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and day and night they have no rest” (Rev. 14:11). This is an “everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Jesus tells his listeners of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man dies, and is “existing in torment . . . he sees . . . calls out . . . ‘I am in anguish in this blazing fire’” (Luke 16:19-31). As a further illustration, Jesus stated that hell is likened to Gehenna. This “Valley of Hinnom” was located southeast of Jerusalem, and was used as a garbage dump where trash and waste were continuously burned day and night in a large fire. Jesus informs the listeners that hell is like this, “where the maggot does not die, and fire is not put out” (Mark 9:42-48). It is the place where the wicked are sent, and from this “everlasting fire” (Matt. 18:8) will come “weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12). Lastly, Revelation 20 calls hell a “pool of fire . . . [where] they will be tormented day and night, forever and ever”—all who are not in the book of life. So, if one’s name is in the book of life, one enters heaven (Rev. 21:27). If it not in the book, then a literal hell awaits.
And the same for heaven.
Although some believe that a foretaste of hell exists on earth. It certainly makes sense in terms of the annoying gnats that sometimes circle humans.
Excellent. You've got a deal. :)
Sir;
You are a visionary and a theological giant. I bow to you and offer to purchase vast quantities of Guinness for your own edification and amusement.
When may the rejoicing begin?
Hell is permanently cast into the lake of fire. Heaven is temporary and will pass away.
Hi Seven;
Welcome to the debate.
Umm, where does it say that Heaven is temporary and will pass away?
Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
***Does that mean that all those who have been chosen for hell have been created to be destroyed?***
Yes. Do you have a problem with God doing with his creation as he wishes?
***Does that mean that all those who have been chosen for heaven have a free choice to reject heaven?***
No, once God has given us the Holy Spirit, it is our desire to please him. Once God has chosen us, given us to Jesus, we are his forever.
***Only children of God have free will?***
Ony chilrdern of God have the capacity to please God. Only a child of God can choose to please God. In that sense, only a child of God has free will.
***The children that are not of God have no free will and are mere refuse to be tortured forever in the everlasting fires of hell?***
You could say it that way.
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.