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.
And it is late and I'm tired, so I'll just paraphrase here some of what I said back at post 5043 - namely that demands for "proof" of God are quite common among atheists on the science threads. They don't disturb me there, they don't disturb me here.
We Christians know that God revealed Himself in a way specifically so that man could not find Him by his own “wisdom:”
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. – I Corinthians 1:19-25
By faith, we know that Jesus is God enfleshed, that He was from the beginning, that everything was made by Him and for Him, that He resurrected and lives.
By faith, we know that God does not lie, that He does not change, that He will not leave us or forsake us, that He keeps every promise.
By faith, we know that God hears our prayers and answers us according to His own will, including extending mercy after judgment - and including leading us by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
and so on.
To them I say – that is the point. All of this is according to God’s will. Only believe. It really is that simple. And when you know the power of God personally - or when He appears to you which He will and at that time every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord ---- then you’ll understand. Then, no one will ask for "proofs" including "caller IDs".
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matthew 22:29
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. - I Timothy 6:20-21
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sermonmanuscripts.html
Then you will really enjoy this site.
It could be. That changes nothing as far as your ultimate state is concerned, does it? So, to claim that somehow your moment of death is ordained is a conjecture. We could say that God knows when it will be, but that the actual cause may be circumstantial.
Ah, so parents make us
Yes, according to the laws of nature God created. Is God still creating or did He finish the job the first time? Yes, we know mountains erode and glaciers carve the landscape. Is that God doing it or the laws of nature playing themselves out?
You get the idea. God is the author and maker of every life
Yes He created all life initially then stopped creating. From then on, life begets life.
John 11:35 Jesus wept. 36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"
I hope you understand that this doesn't make any sense (just one of verses!). He knew that He would raise Lazarus, so why would He be weeping over him? Just because everyone else was crying?
However, apparently God DOES care if we benefit or not because we experience that He blesses us all the time
What's so "apparent" about it? It's all about His purpose or His will for that matter and if we happen to be the recipients of His favor than we are just "lucky" I guess, since He already decided who will be happy and who will roast, right? In other words, if it's pleasure, it by luck on our part, and pleasure on His part.
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. [Rim 8-28]
This suggests that God is not impartial and that He can be swayed by those who love Him because they love Him! It also asserts that only the good have been called to His purpose. Does that mean that Judas, Pharaoh and other popular biblical villains have bypassed His purpose and were acting on their own, and contrary to His will? Otherwise they need "credit" too because without the villains the God of the Reformed created His plan would "stuck."
But that doesn't change my point at all. "Someone" had to program it and force it to do those things. The machine is not a sentient being. We are. Therefore, we are still responsible for our sins regardless of the fact that they may be a part of God's plan.
I don’t think that I’d say that angels and mankind are rational on the order of God.
They are rational in that they are persons, having intellect, sensibility and will.
Thus, God can have a relationship with them.
If you said that God created mankind in order to populate His universe, I’d agree with you. There are a few things that He’d have us do, such as worship and love Him.
Which only a rational creature can do.
Which would make my case that God does indeed have emotion.
[D-fendr's emphasis is bolded, FK's is underlined]
It's no "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" but seems to agree on the without passions part anyway...
Thefreedictionary.com defines "passion" as: "1. A powerful emotion, such as love, joy, hatred, or anger." So, we seem to have a problem here. God cannot love and be passionless at the same time. One solution would be to interpret "passion" in the Confession to refer to the weaknesses of passion that humans so often fall into. That would make the most sense to me. One cannot love if one's whole being is dispassionate.
Are you saying that doing something that God wants and you are not a believer, then you are not doing His will?
This is getting good. Also, could you differentiate between ‘believer’ and ‘elect’ for me please? I’m getting lost in the translation.
The Marcionite heresy found a safe and secure home in the Reformation, didn’t it. You gave him Gospels and he gave you Paul back as well. He didn’t even consider the Gospels worthy of considering, except for possibly Luke.
You guys have been skating around the examples I’ve kept on posting. Would you do me the favour and answer if the examples that I have posted from Numbers or Genesis are as important as the Sermon on the Mount?
This discussion is going nowhere fast because you guys keep diverting from my main point.
I will answer once again that good works alone do not get you into Heaven. The Lord knows that I keep repeating this and I guess that I will have to keep on repeating it. God’s grace is required to get into Heaven, yet, if man rejects God’s grace, then he will not.
You guys don’t seem to understand the mathematical concept of ‘and’. You point to a verse, sometimes in context and sometimes not, and say ‘this means this’ and absolutely ignore anything else in the Bible except other cherry picked verses that can also be interpreted as ‘this.’ Whereas in truth, when looking for the entrance requirements to Heaven, one must read the entire Bible and put it all together.
Let’s face it: you guys attack the Church for pointing out what the path to salvation is as told to us all by Jesus Christ. Instead, you have a revived heresy imported from the second century and fine tuned to the point where you have come up with the concept of the wrathful and sullen OT God who delights in condemning portions of His creation to hell simply because he can. The only people touting this are the ones convinced that they are of the elect. Gnosis provides the convincing. You guys accuse the Church of snobbish elitism. It isn’t the Church that condemns anyone to hell; your philosophy has artificially created the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ and blamed God for them.
And, like Marcion, you point mainly to Paul for support. And, like Marcion, you get it wrong.
I am of the Latin rite, but I see the differences between Latin and Orthodox as mostly cosmetic or cultural.
Many of our Bibles have Jesus’ words (NT) and God’s words (OT) written in red to separate them from all the other text in the Bible. We consider them the highest and the most important. If we don’t consider the direct observed word of God as more important than the words of men, then we may as well stop calling ourselves Christians and start calling ourselves Paulines.
Which is no fault of Paul, by the way. He’s not responsible for the misinterpretation of his great words and deeds. The misinterpreters are.
So was David Koresh, Jim Jones and Charles Manson.
That burning in the bosom is something, isn’t it?
Try the second meaning. It wouldn’t support it.
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
Is God exempt or are some little ones exempt? or...?
The reference is to Luke 17:2, and I think it is first important to understand what "offend" means. From Strong's:
NT:4624 skandalizo (skan-dal-id'-zo) ("scandalize"); from NT:4625; to entrap, i.e. trip up (figuratively, stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): KJV - (make to) offend.
It means to cause to sin. IOW, to "tempt". So, it is not a matter of God being "exempt", rather it is a matter of this being inapplicable to God, since the scriptures plainly tell us that God does not tempt us. While in the narrow sense this verse certainly applies to literal children who are believers (the companion verses Matt. 18:6 and Mark 9:42 leave no doubt that believers are only being referenced), in the general sense it can apply to all believers who have holy child-like faith. The message is that if any of us believers leads any other believer into sin, we are going to be subject to great punishment for it.
They were calling God "immutable" before Webster was a gleam in his daddy's eye. Heck, they were calling Him immutable before English was a gleam in the OED's eye! or Shakespeare's eye!
That is my silly way of saying what somebody else said, namely: words like Passion and immutable are almost "terms of art' in theology, and a great part of the problem is vocabulary, I'd guess.
Similarly with "pleased" and "pleasure". In the quote you offer we got "ευδοκησα". I haul out the Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich and I find .... uh .... ευδοκεω to no one's surprise. And the first meaning is "consider good, consent, determine" and the second is, wait for it ... " be well pleased, take delight" and they show a number of places in the LXX where it means for God to take pleasure in someone.
Thou payest thy money and thou takest thy choice, I guess.
Anytime a Christian is not bearing the fruits of the Spirit (Gal.5:22-23), he is sinning.
One is either in the Spirit or in the Flesh. (Rom.6) Yeah, but I don't get the relevance. I bear some of my best fruits when I don't feel like it.
Nothing ever happens to God, God allows certain things to occur,...
Here's where we need some serious front porch with lemonade time. To me the phrase "happens to God" would include the things He allows to happen to Him (Which would be the only things that could "happen to" Him.) I'm guessing you are using the phrase to include something like "without His consent" and "catches Him by surprise" (which seems to be the Process theology stand and the main part of why I dumped Process Theology. I couldn't wrap my mind around God saying,"Son of GUN! Look at THAT! Who'da thunk it?!)
But more to the point, and this is coming together in a way, am I correct in understanding you to say that nothing "happens to" God unless He willed it first? Would that be an acceptable formulation?
Let me parse my "model" for passion, and then distinguish it from what I think you are saying:
I walk along the store fronts in the Mall. I am dieting (as always) I pass the Ice Cream Sundae store. Without my permission, my mouth waters, and images and recollections of previous Sundaes dance in my head.
My thitherto manly and purposeful stride visibly falters. Thoughts of whatever trinket I was about to buy from Radio Shack suddenly fade. My steps slow and I turn ninety degrees and assume an attitude of thoughtfulness. "After all," I say, "A geegaw from Radio shack is but a means to an end, while a Hot Fudge Sundae on coffee ice cream with marshmallow AND whipped Cream is an end in itself!" All recollection of the frustration I underwent when trying to fasten the trouser button that morning have fled from my mind. Luther hovers before my inner eye, whispering,"Sin boldly!" ....
(This is why I avoid malls ...) But I'm facetiously trying to convey how passion among human type personnel clouds the intellect, damages memory, impedes judgment, and weakens the entire apparatus of will. It USES intellective and volitional tools, like memory and imagination, but what I am chiefly remembering is the delight of my mouth and the experience of the wonderful and addictive insulin rush we get when we carb out.
You Protestants may mock us "idolatrous" Catholics with our jujus and amulets, but I gotta tell you, my miraculous medal bumping up against my sternum or the little cross I keep in my pocket has more than once reminded me that I can call on Divine assistance and get help remembering that it is better to enter heaven with no tummy at all than with a 44 inch waist and a smile on my lips to go to perdition ...
On the other hand, and this is still about passion, I have found that when I am at the range (on a good day) I can send six rounds into the COM of my Q target fairly well when I do so dispassionately. But to send them in FAST, I have to whip up some anger. I have to tense my muscles, and imagine that target is shooting at me. When I'm done, there's a grimace on my face, and i have to calm down a little.
So for us humans, passion is energetic, but the energy can work with or against our will and better judgment.
For the redeemed I suppose we can look forward to having our "affections" line up with our will. And while we would say God is perfect Will, I take it you would say that God has "feelings", but they are always aligned with His will and responsive to it, and NOT spontaneous or arising from who knows where, as human feelings can be.
AM I close?
Believers? What is the difference between the believer and the elect? Is there are difference at all? Can one believe and not be of the elect?
And what would the great punishment be? If you are saved and are going to Heaven, what would the punishment be? I believe that you have alluded earlier to earthly punishment that would occur before death, but I am still kinda fuzzy on that.
Indeed, when we "translate" our cultural mindsets, we find that our differences are not as substantial or irreconcilble as they appear.
If we don’t consider the direct observed word of God as more important than the words of men, then we may as well stop calling ourselves Christians and start calling ourselves Paulines
The Paulines believe all scriptures are equal in terms of importance because all are inspired (cf 2 Tim 3:16). But we know that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy, there were no scriptures that were a direct witness of God (i.e. Gospels), because they were not written yet (or at least they were not being read in churches yet)!
So, inspired rather than witnessed scriptures was all there was.
The fullness of God's revelation did not occur until He came; the law and the prophets were not fulfilled until that moment, which by necessity means that God's revelation was not received in its fullness from all the scriptures written until then, but only through the revelation of Christ (Gospels).
Specifically, God's fullness was not revealed through Paul but through Christ witnessed by His apostles. Otherwise, Paul's gospel is "higher" than the living word of God! Talk about anticlimactic!
There is a reason why the Epistles are read by lay people and separate from the Gospels, which are read at liturgy only by priests and why the Gospels are on the altar and not the whole Scripture, lest we confuse (as apparently some lost Christians have) the Epistles of a man with the Gospel of Christ.
The Gospels are living words of Chirst, as witnessed, and not revealed in someone's head, dreams or experienced in some trans.
But the Paulines hold on to the notion that the stories of tumbling walls of Jericho and other historical books rival those of the Sermon on the Mount.
Yup. "God" told them so...they were led by the "indwelling spirit..."
Yes, that is certainly true. I just wonder whether in fact that casting lots is truly a Godly method of choosing. It may have been a Jewish custom, but was it Christian? I'm skeptical on that. :)
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.
OK, and of course there are plenty of Protestants who would say that Paul was the 12th Apostle, but I didn't go down that road in my first post because I couldn't justify it scripturally to my satisfaction. I'm just not sure. Paul was clearly chosen and sent directly by God, so he WAS an Apostle. But I don't know if he was one of the Biblical 12.
Plus, as alluded to, there is the matter that an Apostle must be sent of God. We know for sure that Paul passes that test, but I don't think we are told one way or the other about Matthias. But interestingly, if it came down to lots, then what authority exactly did the 11 exhibit? Either God fixed the game or it was by random chance. (Is that right?) In my understanding, there was no "vote" taken for Matthias, so there is no way the 11 exerted any authority to choose the successor.
Certainly the choosing by lots methodology seems to have died out during the early Christian era. The (Jewish) Apostles choosing Matthias may have continued using their Jewish methodology for a while; I’m not aware of any record of either for or against.
The Apostles most certainly exercised their authority in choosing a replacement Apostle. The only thing that we may look at slightly askance at is in their methodology. Not in the fact that they did decide to replace Judas.
The selection of Paul would seem to be outside of the normal selection methodology; but that is for God to decide and to do, not man. All we can do is utilize the methodology that we were shown.
Yes, of course.
At the moment that these epistles were written, there would have only been one copy - that sent to the sendee. It will take hundreds of years to have multiple copies circulating around the Christian world. The ONLY scripture that was referred to as being profitable is the OT.
Same as what the Bereans were reading.
So if only the OT is profitable, and equally as profitable, then I would be more inclined to agree with Paul. I certainly do not equate a list of begets with any of Jesus’ words.
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.