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.
True you do... but some sheep in the sheep pen(s) have come out of the sheep pen(s)(John ch10).. You know, as Jesus beckoned them to do.. and many have not... But remain, drawing some kind of safety from the sheep pen(s).. fear maybe..
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." -- Psalm 139:7-8
My argument is with people who mix apples and oranges and sell them as pomegranates. A little general education is Hebraica would dispell any notion that Jewish Sheol is equivalent to Christian hell. One specific feature of Judaism is that it believed God was indeed in Sheol, which was a "real" place where the deceased continued their earthly lives.
If you are going to quote scriptures, then quote them in context of Christian understanding instead of relying on the sophistry of lumping everything into one basket.
Again, your argument is with Scripture, Kosta
My argument is with some people's interpretation or better yet, misinterpretation of the scriptures within their cultural and contextual framework.
The Bible, gives us more than one definition of love...and in our lives we have many more.
And yet He doesn't stop until He catches every one of them and brings them back, where they belong.
Let's refer to that big book of God's word again and find the answer...
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." -- 1 Peter 2:15-16 "For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
"For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." -- 1 Corinthians 6:20
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." -- 1 Corinthians 10:31
And these things we do because it is by and for and through the will of God.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Keep trying.
LoL... cute.. methinks you missed something..
That was funny though..
Everything that happens is by God's will, but not necessarily by God's last action. However, in the way you are framing the issue you merely assign this responsibility to God, on our behalf, but you do not explain how it works. What did God do to earn this responsibility? For example, it sounds very much like you are saying that the mere act of creation puts an obligation on God to offer salvation to all. Therefore, in your mind, if Reformers deny that God offers salvation to all, then God is responsible for all who are not saved. This hypothesis would match everything you have said so far. If this is true, then how do you make the connection between the act of creation and the responsibility you assign to God?
So, in reality, they are not rejecting Christ, but are forced by God to reject Christ ...
This confirms my hypothesis. The mistake you make here is in equating God's will with who does the action, and who is responsible for that action. Consider the alternative that you are defending, which is, that man thwarts God's will, or that God doesn't care enough to have a will. That would be a very weak God in my book.
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.
No, you jump from God is in control directly to God forces us to do evil. That is a false conclusion. God is in control means He gets what He wants. People make their own decisions to sin, without His help. There is no nexus without a duty, and that is what I am asking you to explain.
All the strings are His. And what we do is strict obedience to God's will, no matter if it's good or evil.
As we discussed earlier, your use of the word would have the Cardinals "obeying" me if they come back to win the division. It is not the normal use of the word.
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.
And so your analogy fails. Why is it impossible for God to simply leave people to their own sinful natures?
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.
No, this is your interpretation of scripture you already believe to be false on its face. Your interpretation is not consistent with any other scripture I can think of. However, my interpretation, which is that God left Pharaoh to his own sinful nature, knowing the result, IS consistent with other scripture such as:
Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Wages are earned, not given out as a gift or curse. Pharaoh earned the consequences of his sin. Pharaoh was responsible. This is one reason why your view of us is incorrect.
Precious instruction. Food for my thirsty soul. Thank you.
Why? Don't you ask for forgiveness in "Our Father..."? We can ask, provided we have forgiven those who trespassed against us.
Sure, but what good does it do? Apparently, one needs a priest to actually get forgiveness because that is how the Church set up the rules for itself. IIRC, if one is delinquent in making confession, he is not even supposed to take communion. If true, that sounds pretty forced to me.
The Bible tells us to confess to others. Confessing to God directly is like loving those who love you; no big deal.
What??? :) The Bible does tell us to confess to others, but for the sins we have committed against them. I have no issue with confessing all sins to another person if one is so moved, but confessing directly to God is taking a shortcut? That's ridiculous. :) Are you telling me that God would rather have us go through a middle man than to man up and confess what we did to Him directly? Where does this come from? Doesn't this go against everything we teach our children? If your child has wronged someone and wants to apologize face to face do you tell her to instead tell a friend to pass along the message? :)
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!"
I'm not arguing that it isn't a conditional statement, it is. I'm saying it's not an offer. When I tell my son "If it snows tonight, then you will be shoveling in the morning", I am not making him an offer, I am stating a matter of fact because I have the authority to do so.
We ARE to do because we are commanded so. Among many things, we are told to make disciples of ALL nations. No small job. :) As it affects humans, predestination is not a static term, but rather a term very much in continuous motion. Everything IS already laid out in God's mind, AND it still must take place within time. So in our experience, God is always in motion.
It is my unrewarding vocation to fight a desperate rear-guard against the marauding hordes of language debasers (nothing personal). A linguistic Roland am I.
On my grave will be written:
Parse THIS, sucker!
But do I understand you to say that the freedom God gives in Christ does not mean a freedom to reject God, but one can on a case by case basis, so to speak, reject His instructions as to this or that moral decision?
Just spekkerlatin' here, with two examples:
(1) In the sheriff's office where I worked, if we were not in a building, a vehicle, or a fight, we were ALWAYS to have our Smokey Bear hats on. ALWAYS. You get out of your car and walk 5 steps to a door, you get out, put on your hat, walk five steps, open the door, walk in, take your hat off (and stand around awkwardly with this big ol' hat in your hand).
Some of the deputies who had been there longer than the Sheriff would NOT do this if the sheriff was out of town. But they didn't want to quit being deputies.
OR
(2) Sometimes as teenagers we "hate" our parents for a while. But we still love them, we've just kind of lost sight of that for a while ...
Is it kind of like one or both of those?
OK, and this does lead me to ask what happens if the mortal sin is not taken care of, and the person dies and goes to hell. What happens to the indwelling Spirit in that case?
Amen. I thought the quote you gave from Westminster was perfect. :)
The burden is to show why would they stop what Christ commanded.
That is a sidestep. I say that they didn't stop. You are asserting that they lost the power to heal. I see no evidence of this in the Bible. Is it Tradition?
But, to give you a protestant answer, the Bible tells us sufficiently what we need to know. In this case, we seem to know two incompatible things: Christ never abolished miracles, but indeed commissions signs and healing, and the Apostles mysteriously stop.
That's just it, we DON'T KNOW that they stopped. What is your evidence? Did Jesus perform a miracle with everyone He met? Of course not, and that said nothing as to His ability to perform them. Just like the Apostles, in some cases Jesus did and in some He didn't.
The salvation model is indeed the same, but the Chruch was not there for the Old Testament folk as an ordinary means of grace.
Nice seeing you again.
The Catechism is indeed a layered cake. Often, a reference is to another document, which no doubt makes mention of five more, before you get to the scriptural reference. This is because Catholic doctrines synthesize the deposit of fath of which the scripture is but a component. To connect a doctrine to the supporting scripture it is often easier to go to a Catholic apologetic source that would defend the doctrine rather than merely explain what it is.
Thanx for the ping ... trying to follow along, ‘stayin’ otta tha way up on the porch.’
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.