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 Holy Ghost leaves at the moment the mortal sin is committed.
Good to “see” you too. :)
So, what are they accounting for? None of your verse answers why we account for our salvation if we are not instruments of it. None.
It's all automated in the Reformed theology; man is a rag doll dragged around at God's will. Some are discarded, some are saved. Rag dolls give no account of their fate.
That's really convincing. Don't hold your breath. You are obfuscating the issue. Sheol is not the same as Christian Hell. Christian God does not "reside" in Hell.
Right, except he says "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able...."
"Why should anyone give account of his or her salvation when we didn't earn it" Because when those whose names are not in the "book of life" find out that the information they trusted for their salvation was wrong, there will be no one standing next to them to point to. It is their individual responsibility to discern the truth, not the church's or the early church fathers. Rev. 20:11-15, "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. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 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. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
A lofty goal, but it is not biblical. The ultimate penalty for any sin is death.
Yes, you are correct, of course. I was speaking with Kosta about what the human system should be. The OT certainly meted our penalties proportional to the offense, at least comparatively so. That was my point. I was saying that it would be wrong to give, for example, a transient a lesser sentence for murder because his freedom was deemed "less valuable" than the freedom of a rich person.
To have any system that is proportional would require the wisdom of Solomon to avoid irony. Men will screw it up.
Well, we DO have a proportional system, AND men DO screw it up from time to time for sure. :) I still think it's the best system in the world, and the fairest. I'm not sure what you are supposing would be the alternative, though?
You are not explaining anything either, FK. You are simply telling me "how" it is. That's the problem: it's a personal conviction, not absolute truth.
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
You keep repeating this. No one ever puts any obligation on God. The Bible says He came to save the world. You are telling me it says He came to save the elect. We are reading the same text and we are reading it differently.
God is responsible for all who are not saved
No, because Christ made it possible for the world to be saved. He fulfilled His promise. But that act doesn't force anyone to come to Him. The fact that so many choose to reject Him does not place an obligation on God. It places the responsibility on us (humans), and it also assures that those whom come to God come to Him on their own free will and are not forced or programmed into "loving" God.
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
Then your theology makes God ordain and desire evil.
People make their own decisions to sin
You keep repeating this like a robot, FK, no offense please. If God is in control then everything you do, including sinning, is by His will and not by yours. So, please don't bring "free will" here.
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
We thwart His desire (that all men to be saved) when we sin. He allows it. Love must be free. Otherwise He is the author of sin.
And so your analogy fails. Why is it impossible for God to simply leave people to their own sinful natures?
If God controls and is the cause of their sinful nature then leaving them to their own sinful nature is an oxymoron in the context of your question. Remember: we are preprogrammed to every step. God programmed everything. he made the movie. No changes are possible. So, if you sin, it's because God assigned you to sin. If you go to hell it's because God "convicted" you before the movie even started.
No, this is your interpretation of scripture you already believe to be false on its face
Yeah, right, FK. The verse says God hardened Pharaoh's heart. It doesn't say God let Pharaoh exercise his sinful nature...
Wages are earned, not given out as a gift or curse
We earn our damnation because we choose to sin. When we choose to cleave to God and obey His will He saves us. Your theology actually invalidates both. In your (so-called Reformed) theology, God preordained everything to the "t" and all we do is just play our part in the movie. No one earns anything. It's all given.
LoL...
I'll try not to be so careless with metaphors. What if we look at death as a wage and not necessarily a penalty? Remember the judgment comes after death. This is significant when we see Adam as being a type of Christ.
Short posts today, I'm busy at work.
Seven
So NOW you want to talk of HELL and Sheol.. and I might add... I Cor 2;9.. which indicates "we" may not be able to concieve of Hell and Sheol especially of "Heaven".. except as metaphors.. of what they really are..
What dimension/realm/paradigm does a "creature"(God) that can remodel a planet with a word live in?.. One that can "Walk on unfrozen water".. make "iron ax heads float"..
Leaves what to where?.. Where does the paraclete go?..
Goody metaphors.. What if death is a metaphor and does not really happen.. since a spirit is eternal.. Course a spirit that "sees itself" as flesh would "seem" to die.. At least the "fleshy body would".. The body being merely "clothing" could be changes "by the spirit"..
The Bible indicates quite literally everyone lives forever, "somewhere".. If TRUE then, the death of DNA is merely the death of the machine, or earthly transportation/vehicle.. of the spirit..
Leaves the fellowship with the sinner. The Holy Ghost is the Paraclete.
They are accounting for the lack or presence of Christ within them which is what determines their fruits, their good works, whether they are of the vine or not.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." -- John 15:1-5"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Here is the most excellent understanding of "good works" I've ever read outside of Scripture...
II. These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the Gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11] III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14] IV. They who, in their obedience, attain to the greatest height which is possibly in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[15] V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins,[16] but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants:[17] and because, as they are good, they proceed from His Spirit,[18] and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God's judgment.[19] VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him;[20] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight;[21] but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.[22] VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]I. Good works are only such as God has commanded in His holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.[2]
(The footnotes refer to Scriptural proofs found at the link.)
"To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:6
Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." -- Hebrews 13:20-21"Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
To God alone be all the glory for every good thing, thought, deed, desire and destination.
The Bible indicates quite literally everyone lives forever
I like to distinguish between eternal life and eternal death.
Seven
True... The Holy Spirit and paraclete are the same thing.. ugh!.. person.. ugh.. being.. probably..
Are you saying that the Holy SPirit goes in and out of "us"(our flesh) like water or food or clothing.. depending on a ceremonial act or even a spiritual act?.. In and out, in and out.. in a timely mannar?.. or once for all..
O.K.. What is Life?.. Biologists say life is merely living DNA..
KOSTA: Christian God does not "reside" in Hell.
You have clear, Scriptural evidence that God is everywhere and yet you deny it. God "resides" in heaven, but God is omnipresent. He's everywhere.
Nowhere in the New Testament are those verses from Psalm 139 superseded, abrogated or erased.
Where is your evidence that Psalm 139 is no longer in effect? Where is your evidence that there are places in His creation where God refuses to or is unable to be present?
Perhaps this misunderstanding of Scripture is what leads you to your incorrect perspective that God is not in control of all His creation, even Satan.
In Luke, I think that he’s trying to emphasize the fact that He is eternal, rather than prophesying that Heaven will disappear.
Rev 21:
1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
2
I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, 3 coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3
I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them (as their God).
4
He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, (for) the old order has passed away.”
5
The one who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then he said, “Write these words down, for they are trustworthy and true.”
6
He said to me, “They are accomplished. I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.
7
The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.
8
But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Everlasting life in Heaven, and Heaven itself is not temporary. Heaven version 2.0 will replace the current model.
What a nasty theology.
And what a tortuous logic it requires to defend it.
“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 robot slave is the only one with free will; all those who exercise free will to not worship God don’t have free will...
I’ve posted before quantities of verses pulled from all over the Bible saying that God wants all people to be with Him. It is the purpose of His creation of man - to have all of them willingly worshiping Him.
I’m afraid that we are rehashing old ground here - I give you the Gospels which give direction to all men and you give me Saint Paul who was admonishing a couple of churches under his bishopric - and then apply them to all men (when they were specific to those churches) over top of and instead of the words of Jesus.
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.