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.
Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
And, isn't that because God wanted it that way from the beginning?
To the extent it furthers God's plan, "yes". There are multiple Biblical examples of God's plan being executed using the sin of certain people as a component. And God does not do "work-arounds", He ordains what He wants.
Reformers believe that perseverance is both commanded and absolutely necessary in order to get into Heaven. We do not take it lightly.
I do not think that the reply I say 'amen' to was addressed to the Roman Catholics.
Well, I guess I have a dog in the fight anyway, because I'm in the "without parts or passions" school of thought.
I do think that there is a different notion of what passion is. (Darn, you are making me WORK here! I HATE that!)
In conversation about what God is (which should be preceded and followed by acts of humility) I mean by "passion" a movement of appetite or desire or revulsion. I don't think God has desires and appetites the way we do, or finds them interfering with His will the way we do.
When I had sheep, some veterinary procedures in some cases were just impossible for me because the smells revolted me so much as to make me unable to act. I'd have to pay the vet (I SWEAR - only kidding - that man can't smell ANYTHING!) to do what I could not do.
This is actually kind of related to your next disagreement with moi in #6015
God does not choose to be what He is, He is what He is because He is God.
Thus, God doesn't choose to be Love, God is Love.
To me that's a complete non-sequitur. I don't see how it's an argument. (I'm not putting it down, I'm revealing my incompetence)
On the other hand, here's how it looks to me:
I am "stuck with" who and what and how I am. I can't grow taller, add to the hairs on my head, or do a whole lot about my innate disposition toward depression and so forth. Sometimes it's okay being Mad Dawg, sometimes not, but there's not much I can do about it.
Pollyanna Rivanna Luxapalila Chincoteague Dot Org(andy) the cat doesn't even think about whether she wants to be a cat.
But in God nothing is an accident. Nothing "happens" to God. He is not Stuck with anything. He is what He is and He chooses to be what he is. That's not so say He chose among options. "Hmm, shall I be a loving God, or should I do the Krang from the Pit thing? What to do, what to do?" But He wills everything including Himself. He IS a God of Love and He WILLS to be a God of Love.
So John 3:16 is His working out in history, in created time, in the sphere of mobility and mutability, of what He has always willed.
However, immutability does not mean immobility.What is motion but a change in place with respect to time? What is mutability but the ability to change? It seems to me immutability means precisely immobility. How do we hack through this?
HarleyD quoth
Have you considered that God could have a different type of these same attributes? For example God can love us with a godly love but that would not necessarily be the same as our humanly love.And I say the difference is that our love is shot through with "appetite", with "feelings", with passions. And it feels like it "happens to us". To the extent that it is chosen, it is will born along by passion, and often, sooner or later, will must slog on when the passions either quit or actively work against will. God's love is chosen and intended and as simple as He is.
As a "meta" comment: I guess that there is a scheme of discourse, or rather, many schemes, and some of the disagreement is related to the difference in schemes. HarleyD says the incarnate Jesus had hands, so we may say God has hands. I think in another scheme of discourse we would say something like an aspect of the mystery of the Incarnation is that the Divine hypostasis is united with the human hypostasis in one person - without a confusion of Substances/hypostases. That person, who was God, died. So we can say God died. But we can't say God was dead. That person, has parts, like hands. But since the two hypostases are not "confused" the Divine hypostasis does not have hands.
Yet, to make it worse, the so-called Athanasian creed says FWIW that the union of two hypostases in One Christ is done by "Taking up of Manhood into God"
At which point I say, "Honey, turn on the TV I want to watch Oprah, This stuff is too much for me."
But I wasn't talking about the manner so much as the perceived need and authority. The eleven thought they had to and they thought they could.
And I don't think the distinction between apostle and clergy is a great as you seem to think it is. YEAH there's a distinction, but it's not all that great to me.
The NOT Rev. Mad Dawg.
“Anthropomorphisms.”
Is “God is love” an anthropormorphism? Is
“God, who is rich in mercy” an anthropormorphism?
All we can say is what God has revealed to us. God says He is love and creation testifies to this. God says He is wrath and history shows this. We see in a mirror darkly and accept these things on faith.
And as for mercy, In civil justice mercy and justice are opposed to one another. To show mercy to someone seems almost always to deprive someone else of what is His due. But in God mercy is the perfection of Justice.
So again, I have to conclude something like that our experience of mercy, love and justice and our claiming those words to describe our experiences and actions is in a way grandiose or, "theomorphic".
Just a bagatelle. We are stuck with needing to be in the image of God and to have SOME clue about what He is, or we could talk and talk and never make any sense at all ....
(Yes yes, I know I've already achieved that ....)
Well, what about joy, rejoicing, pleased? Are they “theomorphisms”?
I'f I'mgoing to argue this, prt of it would be to argue that to call me a father because of my relationship to the 'orrible brat child is also a theomorphism. I'm just sorta like THE Father. HE is a REAL father.
Yes, but I don't see the point you are trying to make. I was asking you if you thought that the time of death for most/all people was random.
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.
Ah, so parents make us. I see. So, you don't agree with Ps 139:13? :) If not, then you won't like these either: :
Gen 4:1 : And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. KJV
Isa 44:24 : Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; KJV
Jer 27:5 : With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please.
Acts 14:15 : "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.
Acts 17:24-25 : 24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
You get the idea. God is the author and maker of every life.
God created the world good. Whatever imperfection and evil exists in it is because our ancestral parents rejected the Good and became evil.
In general, I have no problem with this statement. However, it should be remembered that the first sin committed "in the world" was not by Adam or Eve, but by the serpent.
FK: "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.
Here is the passage:
1 John 2:15-17 : 15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For everything in the world — the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does — comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
I agree with you that many Christians love the world inappropriately. However, while I think your purported Christian dealing with loss is fine for some, I do not think it Biblically wrong or sinful to feel sadness at the separation upon death. We will "miss" the departed. Paul said all the time how he missed being with the churches he had visited. There is nothing wrong with that. Here is the classic example:
John 11:32-36 : 32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 "Where have you laid him?" he asked. "Come and see, Lord," they replied. 35 Jesus wept. 36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"
There it is. Now, whether Christ had control over the destination of this man's soul or not, He clearly sets the example for all of us that it is perfectly right and proper to cry over the loss of a loved one.
FK: "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 it comes to mankind.
I probably checked 5 online dictionaries, and they all had the same definition for 'dispassionate': "Devoid of or unaffected by passion, emotion, or bias." Love is an emotion. This would seem to paint the eastern Church into quite a corner. :)
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.
Well, as I can objectively prove, I spend an INORDINATE amount of my free time right here :) witnessing my faith to dozens or hundreds of thousands of readers, some number of whom have not yet accepted Christ. I don't need a medal or anything, but I really do think it IS something that contributes. You can say the same thing.
FK: "Plus, we have to stay alive long enough to make more future Christians."
I thought 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!
Well, given my above, I have to admit that my word choice here was not optimal. :) I was thinking of the joke and not the theology. I maintain that God makes all of us through the mother and father of each child. God DETERMINES the elect, by name, from before the foundations, but He does not physically "make" us until conception, and thereafter.
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?
He DID create us for His pleasure, and you're right that it's not about us. However, apparently God DOES care if we benefit or not because we experience that He blesses us all the time. Plus, we have the Bible, which is clear on the matter. For example:
Rom 8:28 : And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Morning, sir.
I am struck by the text of Dr. Piper’s attempt to reconcile James 2 with Romans 3-4.
The only reference to the Gospels is to John 10:35, which appears to take the reference to the Gospels slightly out of context.
If we are trying to reconcile faith with works, why would one not go to the entire chapter of Matt 5; Matt 25, Rev 20, and so on? Why are we trying to reconcile the words of men with each other, when we should be trying to reconcile them with the words of Christ? I really don’t understand the emphasis here.
Are we Christians or are we Paulines?
The insidious thing is that without Caller ID, one cannot know.
It could be God. It could be satan. It could be a malicious spirit of some kind. It could be an angel. It could be mental unbalance.
The same deal as an OUIJA board. Who is on the other side?
I not sure what you mean by the phrase: “God’s passions are always controlled by His other attributes, so they respond accordingly.”
Could you elaborate please?
“An unfeeling ‘god’ is not a God that would die for His creation, it is only a ‘force’.
5,916 posted on 09/11/2007 4:45:01 PM CDT by fortheDeclaration”
God didn’t die. The human nature of Jesus did. You cleared it up in your next post. Thanks.
God created the universe for Him, not us. We are His Creatures, created to populate His universe.
Affection is not a corollary of love. How many marriages do you know of where there is love, yet the individuals have no affection for each other?
Example: the cops go to a domestic disturbance where the man is beating the tar out of his woman. The cops pull him and and start to stuff him in the paddy wagon. The woman takes a frying pan to the back of the cops’ heads.
Affection? No. Love? Sure.
Just clearing up a question as to whether or not you thought that each of the Divine Presences can have thoughts or emotions or reactions different from each other at the same time.
The OT has examples of how the Jews handled some decisions - casting lots was one of them.
Normally our priests attain a minimum of a 4 year college degree followed by 4 years of seminary training. Probably a tad more sophisticated than casting lots. But in light of how some individuals got through, maybe not sophisticated enough. :(
Isn't there actually some conversation about that? I'm going with God died but He wasn't dead.
Well, in many Bibles, the Words of Jesus are written in red, versus black for the rest of the text, so that they stand out.
We take the Words of Jesus as is and understand them unto themselves. Next, we take the words of the Gospels and fit them to the Words of Jesus. Now we have the basic shape or form of the Word of God while Jesus was on Earth.
The rest of the NT should then be read with one eye on the Gospels so that any apparent interpretational conflict is settled not by passing over or ignoring the Gospels, but by examining the words of the men who came and did after Jesus left. Now, we understand the NT as a whole. Jesus said that He came to show us what the OT really was and meant, so that we must look at the OT once we understand the NT and measure the OT by the NT understanding that we have.
I agree that we do have some divergence here. I have attempted to show that portions of the Bible are more important than others - the Sermon on the Mount versus the list of begettors in Genesis, for instance. They are all the Word of God, certainly and must not be discounted.
But I think that for instruction in our daily lives and in the eternal destination of our souls, the Sermon is more immediately relevant than who begot whom.
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.