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.
We have already discussed this. None of that guarantees the individual heaven, at least from our point of view. A sealed person can lose their inheritance, as Paul writes to Galatians, Hebrews, and the Corinthians. God won't forsake His children, but WE can forsake Him, as Paul writes to Timothy and the above communities. He loved us while we were yet sinners, and continues to love us. While not a dogmatic teaching, many believe that God loves even those in hell. So God's Love doesn't necessarily mean a person is free from hell. But some people do not reciprocate His love in the least. Those who do not obey God's will cannot enter into His presence. I do not think there is a clearer statement from the entire bible...
The Scriptures seems to indicate that God hands over to His wrath those who refuse God and His will. Even Jews. Thus, Paul tells Christians to beware that they do not falter, as well. Persevering in Christ is a predominant theme in the NT. I do not think it is to be taken so lightly.
Regards
That's certainly a reasonable assumption. We are not here to stay, so to God the time we spend on earth could be irrelevant. Since what we do does not affect our salvation or perdition, it is what happens afterwards that matters.
Whether you take a fast train or a slow train is irrelevant. Those who were "predestined" to believe will believe; those who were not will not, right? The reprobate will remain reprobate whether they live 1 day or 100 years according to your Reformed theology.
Ps 139:13 : For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Do you suppose that knitting included congenital birth defects, abnormally strong heart muscles, below average immune systems, etc.?
Does God make retarded people? God doesn't "make" us. Parents make us following God's laws of procreation. Thus whatever corruption the parents have they give it to their offspring.
Or, do you suppose that we are made physically equal and everything after that happens by chance?
God created the world good. Whatever imperfcetion and evil exists in it is because our ancestral parents rejected the Good and became evil.
I don't think we can have any idea how long Adam lived in sin
His entire life, of course. His sin changed his nature and made it mortal. Mortality (death) is evidence of sinfulness. It's not only what we do and think, it's our nature or essence. Even if he didn't sin any more, he wanted to. And Christ tells us that even a lustful thought is a sin.
In my church we DO celebrate the lives of the departed. Of course, we also feel sorry for ourselves at our own loss
Somewhere in the NT it says we should not love the world. Obviously so many seem to disregard it. We love God but we love our world too, sometimes more, don't we? True Christians should be delighted at their loss! We should be celebrating the departure of the loved ones, because if you love your neighbor as yourself you would delight in their heavenly rewards, and the joy of their loss would pale any residual sorrow for their absence.
I would venture to say that our sorrow is a seed of doubt we all have but are afraid to admit. It is also an indication of how much we love the world.
God obviously wants His children here for a time for His reasons
Pure speculation. God could be completely dispassionate as regards our stay here. In fact, the eastern Church teaches that God is indeed dispassionate when ti comes to mankind.
One of which is to fulfill the Great Commission
Oh yeah? So how much of your free time do you spend evangelizing non-Christians? Or do you try to "fit" it in your busy schedule of other "fun things to do?" What priority in your life does the Great Commission take in your free time? First, second, third, after the football game, after BBQ; do your vacations go all towards the Great Commission...c'mon FK, you know what I mean. It's all talk and feel-good stuff. We put God on the back burner all the time. But a Pharisee would make it sound like he lives, drinks and talks nothing but God.
If we're all dead, then who is going to do the work?
God doesn't need us to do the work. He already did everything. The world is turning around all by itself.
Plus, we have to stay alive long enough to make more future Christians
I though God made all the elect from before foundation of the world according to your theology. We can't make Christians! And if He wants more, He certainly can make more. We could all be engaged in populating the earth 24/7/365!
Here, mankind benefits from the commission of sin, since if we never die, no one goes to be in Heaven with God
I thought God created us for His pleasure in your theology. Who cares if we benefit or not? It's not about us, or is it on Tuesdays and Thursdays?
“God created the world good. Whatever imperfcetion and evil exists in it is because our ancestral parents rejected the Good and became evil.”
“His entire life, of course. His sin changed his nature and made it mortal. Mortality (death) is evidence of sinfulness. It’s not only what we do and think, it’s our nature or essence.”
Wow! That sounds sooo Augustinian. Almost like original sin leaning heavily towards total depravity. Now maybe we can move on to the “U” in T.U.L.I.P.
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
I don’t see allegorical interpretation in the sense that it was merely a vision to explain the fulfillment of the law and the prophesy, sort of like when Jesus spoke of sheep and gates there was no need for actual sheep and corrals for Him to say that.
When they do note is that Moses and Elijah represent a wider communion of Hebrew saints. But I don’t see any dispute that they are real Moses and real Elijah.
The fact that Moses was still in his tomb at the time does not bother these commentators. This can only be if Peter, John, and James saw the future, — but it was real future, not an allegory of the future.
” But I don’t see any dispute that they are real Moses and real Elijah.”
Peter confirms that.
2 Pet. 1:17-18, “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.”
Sorry, horticulture theology never appealed to me very much. :)
Interesting proposition. In other words, they were transprted in time (into the future) and then returned? Time travel? Hmmmm.
Has all the makings of The Matrix...illusion, or maybe delusion. However, how does htis explain St. Peter's continued lack of faith? I mean, when the news came that the tomb was empty, St. peter did not raise his hands in the air and proclaimed, "I knew it!"
“I mean, when the news came that the tomb was empty, St. peter did not raise his hands in the air and proclaimed, “I knew it!”
Revelation, it is a revealed belief.
John 14:26, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
John 16:13-14, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”
Right, and especially the surrounding verses where Peter makes sure none of it was "artificial fable" or his "private interpretation". He directly forestalls such thinking.
Also note, Kosta, the reference to "more firm prophetical word" in 2 Peter 1:19, supporting the prophetic nature of the Transfiguration miracle.
"Divine economy" means different things to different people, but if you are talking about an extra-scriptural man-made tradition, then you're right that I'm probably not familiar with it.
Until His death, in real time and in real place, on the Cross, no one could be free from death, neither those who died prior to this moment, nor those who were going to die.
So your model has God punishing those who were not fortunate enough to die after Christ did. Interesting. Doesn't this violate your ideas of God's fundamental fairness?
But the Church teaches that after His death on the Cross Christ descended into Hell and freed the OT righteous. The Apostolic Creed, as well as the 3rd century Syrian Creed, says that "He descended into hell." (or to the dead).
I have never agreed with this interpretation of the Creed that Christ LITERALLY went to hell. The suffering Christ went through for us WAS "hell". Plus, it would violate John 19:30: "It is finished", AND Luke 23:46: "Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit."
In any event, if He physically died at around 3 p.m., and the new day started at 6 p.m., then He couldn't have spent very long in hell if He was going to keep His promise to the thief. :)
That's right. Good point. :)
Only someone who disregards Scripture could presume that God is dispassionate about His creation.
"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." -- Hebrews 12:2
To paraphrase Goldie Hawn in "First Wives Club" -- "I'm an actress GOD! I've got ALL the emotions!!!"
Unbelievable. Someone who makes a statement like this has never cracked open the bible, or understood any it, if he has. God loved them so much that He gave His only Son to die for their sins.
Furthermore one thing that all the prophets reveal to us, over and over and over, is that God is sensitive and cares deeply about His creation. I don't know about you, but I often apologize to Him for all my stupidity, and it's great, I assure you
But Paul clearly applies the idea to all people. For example:
Rom 6:16-23 : 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves , you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21 What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
These are some of multiple examples, Paul is not only referring to himself.
A slave does not have free will; only a servant does. Do the rest of the Apostles identify themselves as slaves? No; as servants - servants with a free will who can leave the employ of their Master at will.
As you can see from above, Paul at least partially disagrees. This is where all the technicalities of what "freedom" is come into play. "Freedom" is one of those words that can be defined in apparently contradictory ways, and yet I would agree with both in context. Therefore, freedom is always limited, but to very different degrees, and at different times. So, it always depends on the context.
I could only find one other relevant reference to slavery by another Apostle:
2 Peter 2:19 : They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity — for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.
In both directions, this would appear to completely agree with the ideas Paul espouses. If Peter thought Christ was his master, and I'm sure we both think he did, then he doesn't appear to think that he was free to leave Him.
The example of the prodigal son has no meaning under Reformed theology except as a mechanical exercise - ...
Every story in the Bible has meaning to us. In many cases it is just a different meaning than to you. You are apparently saying that a parable has more meaning if it can be interpreted as giving man more powers in self-determination. That is not my view of "meaning". :)
If man is made in God’s image, then why would he throw the bulk of humanity away? I understand about the clay, but men are not pots, they are the pinnacle of His creation.
Then apparently you do NOT understand about the clay. :) I mean, it was God Himself who made the analogy. Why would He say that if not to give us a clear picture of the level of His sovereignty? God is free to do with His creation ANYTHING He chooses.
Ummm, wouldn’t you say that God was dispassionate about the bulk of humanity that He would throw into hellfire forever under Reformed theology?
Yes, I was just referring to the logical conclusion of such an interpretation of that particular verse in Matthew. If I was representing Catholicism to someone else I would say "grace plus works". I hope that would be fair. :)
Amen.
Man was made in God's image and likeness and that includes emotions!
Amen.
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.