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.
Thank you, I was at work and could not access the Bible.
As ALL of scripture comes from the Holy Spirit, I would say that the entire Bible is of equal importance.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
***Try reconciling conflicting statements in the Bible rather than selectively quoting only those thing you happen to agree with, or judging someonen else. ***
You, sir, selectively quote and believe on certain portions of the Bible, the rest YOU ignore. That is why you have such a hard time with God destroying his creation ANY time he wants to.
Well, let’s examine that.
If God hates sin and he has created all humanity in order for them to sin, then obviously He hates mankind, too.
If God doesn’t hate sin, but judges dispassionately as to the the deeds of each human, then He is measuring each human by an objective measurement, then He is dispassionate about mankind.
If God stacks the deck in favour of mankind by sending His Only Begotten Son to die on the Cross so as to allow those of us who want to be saved, to be saved, then He loves us.
That darn ol’ Bible keeps talking about God loving all mankind. So inconvenient.
I would say that God uses sin as a metric to measure us by, as we would weigh something or see how tall it is. I’m not sure that ‘hate’ would exactly describe it.
Your Scripture passages talk about the wicked hating God, not about God feeling anything at all towards them.
Good question. The answer is: Jesus paid for your window before you broke it. Yes, you should be contrite, and offer an apology, and try not to break another one, but the cost and punishment for the window is already paid. To try to pay for a window that Jesus already paid for is to say to Jesus, “Your payment was not enough, I have to contribute, also.” This is not the way with God. Jesus paid for all the windows you will ever break.
God is God; He may be beyond emotions, I certainly don’t know.
Are you implying that a member of the Godhead can have a differing opinion, thought, emotion or outlook from another of the Godhead?
5 |
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: |
6 |
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: |
7 |
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: |
8 |
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. |
9 |
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: |
Hardly exclusivity. We do not preach the mass discarding of humanity into the furnaces of hell by some unknown methodology of selection.
What were the disciples at this point? They were the teachers, the preachers, the arbiters, the instructors, the decision makers, the admonishers, the leaders and the evangelists of their age. They were the Church. There were no NT books; there were no NT instruction manuals; there was no Internet or Gutenberg or even thousands of monks faithfully copying out the Bibles at a rate of 3 a year?
They were the Church and the first officials. Did they not train and appoint presbyters? Did they not divide up the world into bishoprics and run them? If not Church and officials what were they?
When I pour my glass of Ruby Port tonight, I shall lift my glass in toast to your clear exposition! Thank you. ‘Here’s to windows ...’
I would categorize love as a decision. Those who would treat it as an emotion - as a result of something, rather than as a consciously made decision are often disappointed in marriage, especially.
Anger and affection are emotions, not love.
God died?
You mean that for 2 1/2 days the Universe was without God?
Calvin doesn’t explain it nearly as well as Jesus does in Matt 25, or He does in Rev 20, or in a whole bunch of Gospel and NT passages. Once again, we have the theology of Paul admonishing his renegade churches replacing the message of Jesus.
As a matter of fact, Calvin omits these passages from his theology entirely. I’m surprised that they survived as Scriptural after Luther took his machete to the Bible.
If it will help, think of the three persons of the Godhead as each a manifestation for the complexity level of the universe God has created/is creating. Jesus would be the least complex expression while confined to our spacetime prior to the Cross, then He transcended our spacetime limits as evidenced by His passing through solid stone to leave the tomb and through solid walls to enter locked rooms. He has accomplished that which is required in order for us to also step up into this higher level of expression of being and by faithe (action based upon belief which is sustained by confidence in the promises of God to usward) we are born anew into a next stage/phase of existence He brought ‘down’ to us. Jesus explained this to Nicodemus (John 3) and to Philip (John 14), in essence, then did it as he had proclaimed it to be, thus it remains true that ‘by Him and with Him were all things made that are’.
My Palm Pilot comes preprogrammed with certain functions which will operate automatically. Call them sin if you wish.
God indeed does have a behavior mechanism and He used it/displayed it when He made a whip and drove the moneychangers from the temple(!) to name one example.
Never tried Port. I like a fairly dry red. Any suggestions as to a Port I should try?
Ah Luther, the man of ‘ohne’ and ‘allein’ ... but God Saved him anyway.
Graham, Six Grape. For the money you will not find a better Ruby Port. Stay away from Tawny Port unless you like stale bread taste. I mix my Port with CranRasberry juice 50/50 and pour it over ice. Quite refreshing. Certainly accomplishes what Paul told Timothy to use wine for.
Interesting.
Num 13:
16
These are the names of the men whom Moses sent out to reconnoiter the land. But Hoshea, son of Nun, Moses called Joshua.
17
In sending them to reconnoiter the land of Canaan, Moses said to them, “Go up here in the Negeb, up into the highlands,
18
and see what kind of land it is. Are the people living there strong or weak, few or many?
19
Is the country in which they live good or bad? Are the towns in which they dwell open or fortified?
20
Is the soil fertile or barren, wooded or clear? And do your best to get some of the fruit of the land.” It was then the season for early grapes.
21
So they went up and reconnoitered the land from the desert of Zin as far as where Rehob adjoins Labo of Hamath.
22
Going up by way of the Negeb, they reached Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, descendants of the Anakim, were living. (Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
23
They also reached the Wadi Eshcol, where they cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes on it, which two of them carried on a pole, as well as some pomegranates and figs.
24
It was because of the cluster the Israelites cut there that they called the place Wadi Eshcol.
Matt 5:
1
When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him.
2
He began to teach them, saying:
3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4
Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
6
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
7
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
12
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
13
“You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14
You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.
15
Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house.
16
Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.
17
13 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
18
Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.
19
Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
20
I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
22
17 But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
23
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you,
24
leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.
25
Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.
26
Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.
27
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
28
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29
20 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
31
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’
32
But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33
“Again you have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘Do not take a false oath, but make good to the Lord all that you vow.’
34
But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne;
35
nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
36
Do not swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.
37
24 Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.
38
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
40
If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
41
Should anyone press you into service for one mile, 26 go with him for two miles.
42
Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
43
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44
But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45
that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46
For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors 28 do the same?
47
And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?
48
So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Yes I see. I see what you mean. Every word in Numbers is at least as important as every word from the mouth of Jesus. What religious affiliation did you say that you belonged to?
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.