Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
The KJV has never proven to be in error.
Why should I be limited to the second meaning, when the first meaning does support it!
Now you know the trouble we have been having with him.
And when you read those words you are reading them in English and thus, that is the language we think in.
Now, the point of the definition of immutable was to show that it didn't mean immobile only that all of God's attributes are never compromised, that is can change or be lessoned.
All of those attributes work in perfect harmony with one another, so the essential point of immutability is the fact that the perfect harmony of God's Person can never be compromised, not that His Perfection paralyzes Him.
[ 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.
You only bear fruit when it is God producing them, that is when you under control by God and not your flesh.
So, your feelings are irrelevant to what is being produced, you may actually be physically ill at the time.
[ 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?
Yes, nothing happens unless God has willed it to happen, and it either falls under His 'directive will' (those things God wants to happen and in accordance with His Plan) and 'Permissive will', )those things that God allows to happen even though they go against His own directive will-like sin.)
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?
Close, but not exactly on target.
While it is true that God's feelings are not spontaneous, (since He always knows what is going to occur) the essential issue is that they are never dealing with anything negative on His part.
God never deals with doing something that would be anything less then Perfect.
God's passions come into play in that He loves and in giving happiness to others, has pleasure in doing so.
As for your piece of medal on your chest, the Bible says, 'thy word have I hid in my heart that I may not sin against thee' (Ps.119:11)
That is what keeps you away from sin, God's word.
Yet they didn't have any problems printing indulgences that a person could buy. Funny how that works.
And they're still struggling with Catholic home Bible studies to this very day while those little cards with devotions to Mary pop up everywhere. They really need to set priorities. Well, maybe they have.
Yes, a very nice essay. The heresies are regurgitations with different labels, a fresh crop of chewed up vomit in every generation.
Dr.E: Spoken like a true humanist.
"Love your enemies" (I guess Christ spoke like a real humanist for your taste).
But then there are Paulines and there are Christians...
"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee." -- Proverbs 25:21-22
"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." -- Romans 12:20
Is this something Christ would say?
"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity." -- Psalm 5:5
Yet He saves them!
"But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity." -- Luke 13:27
And here I was under the impression that our destiny is not work-related, but rather pre-determined before we even existed, let alone sinned.
It all revolves around a correct understanding of justification -- salvation is not due to what we do, but what Christ did
Then your own verse above (Luke 13:27), i.e. "workers of iniquity," makes no sense, especially in view of the fact that the Bible is clear that we will be judged according to what we do (that would be our deeds).
Well, hold the popcorn. It’s 2:17 on the east coast and I’m going to bed. :O)
LOL!!!
'therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.'
There will come a where/when that men may be, will be, judged according to their works. But to those in whom there is therefore now condemnation will not be judged in that where/when for they are covered by the Blood Of Christ which cleanseth from ALL unrighteousness. Only after being cleansed under His blood can one walk 'after the spirit'. Such an one will not be then tossed back into a judgment posture before God because that would call to nullification the righteousifying accomplished with Christ's Blood.
Perhaps there are two or more events in Heaven that are being confused in this 'judgmental posture' from some posters? Weddings aren't judgment events, I don't think, anyway. [Now, back up on the porch ...]
Then God is not unchanging, but subject to change (passions, emotions). Nor can He be a perfect (impartial) Judge. Good's "moods" reflect our spiritual state with regard to God. Some are comforted, and others are "burned" by His blessings.
Fire is fire. It can burn you but it can warm you and it can blind you as much as it can show you the way.
"For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." -- Malachi 3:6"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." -- James 1:17
I am surprised that you seem to be taking the side of Kosta in this debate, D-fendr. Isn't it your church that celebrates THE PASSION OF CHRIST?
Since you excerpted the WCF, let's see the entire Chapter II...
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
But I've read you a hundred times saying -- "God is love."
So you seem to be all over the map here.
A correct understanding would be to say that God has no changeable passions. His passion, like everything else about Him, is immutable, complete and in need of nothing.
And every fire will be according to the exact purpose of God in order to accomplish His will.
If God wants us to be comfortably warmed by a fire, we'll be nice and toasty. If God wants a sinner punished for his sins, the terrible heat of that fire will be his eternal destination.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." -- John 17:9-10"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
God's passions are perfect..
Still your confession says: "without body, parts, or passions," not "with perfect passions" or "without imperfect passions" whatever these terms may mean.
They do not change.What He loves, He loves forever. What He hates, He hates forever.
Either: He hates and loves at the same time - seems a split 'person'? Or what you're describing isn't really a passion in the sense we're using. And still, your confession says..
And if we can say "God is love" can we also say "God is hate" in your view?
I am surprised that you seem to be taking the side of Kosta in this debate, D-fendr.
It's the orthodox side. I think it's pretty much found in of all mainstream Christian theology, Protestant included. The theology I excerpted goes way back and hasn't changed.
[We should sometime discuss how we relate to God as our Father; but, this is different than the theology of the Holy Trinity - this may be what is underneath the confusion here.]
Isn't it your church that celebrates THE PASSION OF CHRIST?
Doesn't yours? And both our theologies say God is without passions. To confuse Christ's passion with this discussion involves an error in Christology and/or the Trinity I believe.
Thanks again very much for your reply and posts...
Agree. That's usually the response someone gives when they can't find anything doctrinally wrong with the argument; "...you have proven my point by posting John Calvin". What a hoot!
Salvation by works is a flawed doctrine from the get-go and constantly condemned by the church. People relying upon their own works will have a very sad awakening. One would have thought after two thousand years we would realize this.
Sister, I will respectfully disagree with that statement. You are forgeting God's mercy and Christ's sacrifice does not require that man has to be absolutely perfect. Do you expect your children to be perfect? God doesn't, either. His absolute and perfect justice is satisfied by Christ, so He can grant Mercy to those who are walking in Christ, albeit imperfectly.
Your response merely avoids the obviously problem with your theology - God is not judged, man is. GOD sets the standards, and if He decides to give mercy to men who are not perfect, then you should ACCEPT this Good News, not try to place God under judgment.
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19
Of course - we are MADE righteous. IT doesn't say we have been imputed with justice or righteousness, it doesn't say that Christ covers us, it doesn't say that God pretends we are righteous. It says we are MADE righteous!
WE ARE RIGHTEOUS BECAUSE GOD MADE US SO! Regards
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.