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.
Psalm 138:6 Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.
I agree.
I remember being startled by Paul's verse the first time I read it and again seeing it in Proverbs.
Lately I've found it to be true that God marks His own, by the blood of the lamb on the door or by writing His word on our hearts and minds or even perhaps by not leveling hot coals of fire on our heads.
"Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates: That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth." -- Deuteronomy 11:18-21
"All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." -- Luke 10:22"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them" -- Hebrews 10:16
You posted: "I do not know if God will accept me into Heaven; the Lord knows that I hope and that I am doing what I can."
When Nicodemus came to Jesus at night asking after the message he might receive from Jesus, The Lord told Nicodemus that he must be born again. A short exchange ensued in which Nicodemus seemed confused, even focusing on being born of the flesh as with the amniotic fluid from the womb. But Jesus refocused Nicodemus to the birth in the Spirit. THIS birth is being born into a new family, the family of God! Once so born you cannot change in which family you are therefore born. When so born into that family, The Holy Spirit of God comes into you and Jesus assures that He (that Spirit of Truth) will never leave you or forsake you, for the seed that remained in Jesus is the same seed that remains in those born into His family! You can and ought know in your heart that you are in His family and He is coming back to get YOU to be with Him where He is preparing a place for you. When you are born again, born into God's family in Christ, you are --not will be or could be-- you are a new creation and to that new creation Jesus has promised He will never leave you or forsake you and you are not so powerful nor is Satan so powerful ('the gates of hell shall not prevail against The Holy Spirit) that you could be born out of His family! Exhibit the same faithe that Jesus exercised even unto the death of the cross and the resurrection, believe God ... now stop doubting you are in Him and walk accordingly, boldly, for the sake of others, for you are already seated with Him in Heavenly places!
Sometimes it seems some of us take a contrary position just to be contrary. 8~)
Do you really imagine there's going to be human pride in heaven? Consider the fact that human pride is what got Adam, Eve and the rest of us into so much trouble in the first place.
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." -- Proverbs 16:18
And so it did.
KOSTA: And that must be true because—you say so?
No, because the word of God says so.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" -- Ephesians 1:3-5"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." -- Psalm 139:16
Your comment does not show a motive. It simply states that some were "booked" before they weren't even around. If it is true that some "love" God because they were "booked" before foundations of the world, then it's no love.
The motive is God's will, Kosta, as it always is. And this is exactly what love is. It is God loving us before we love Him.
Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because He first love us." -- 1 John 4:16-19"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Like A-G said, Kosta. Relax. You have been forgiven. The rest is clean-up and it's easier when we know that's the way it's supposed to be.
Amen. I'm reminded of King Josiah and how they found the word of God buried and sealed in a chamber of the temple. All those years they must have "thought" they were doing the right things. Only when they read the book of the Law did they realize how far they had strayed.
But who gives us our humility, our faith, anything? Everything comes from the Father, including our ability to repent.
Kosta-That is the most arrogant statement I have heard so far! There are those who are poor in spirit who are not Christians.
??? Our natural tendency is not to humble ourselves. Only God working in our lives can humble us. If that sound arrogant, it isn't like saying, "I'm a Christian today because I've humbled myself before God."
If you think you have humility, you don't.
The whole Bible centers around the "chosen" people. Think about it.
In order to this it takes a free and voluntary act of WILL,humbling oneself to “die to self” in order to follow the Will of God.
We must embrace the cross in our lives COMPLETELY.Those who will not accept the Cross in their lives do NOT follow the Will of God.
The best description of mortification was given by Our Blessed Lord. He said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mat 16:24).
This dying to self is NOT pre-programmed into us! If it was there would be no need for Scripures that tell us to deny ourselves! The Scriptures are full of examples that we must die to self. Just a few....
Luke 9:23-24
“Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross DAILY and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”
Mark 8:34-35
“He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them, “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.”
Gal 5;24
“Now those who belong to Christ (Jesus) have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.”
Romans 6:11
“Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 7:4-6
“In the same way, my brothers, you also were put to death to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, to the one who was raised from the dead in order that we might bear fruit for God.
For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death.
But now we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter.”
John 12;24-25
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.
Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.
Wow. That's how I responded to Kosta, too. Those words must mean something mighty powerful. 8~)
I'm not saying that you must not die to yourself. Until the Son set you free, you cannot humble, repent, or come to God in any fashion. You can't even die to yourself. God must gives us grace, faith and strength to follow Him. You can't manufacture humility or faith or any work of the Spirit. These things come from the Spirit of God.
Once God sets us free from our bondage, we become ambassadors for Christ in which God leads and guides us. The Christian journey is one of learning this lesson. This is what Pilgrim's Progress is all about. Of course, that was by a non-Catholic author.
Gal 5;24 “Now those who belong to Christ (Jesus) have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires.”
Notice that those who belong to Christ Jesus HAVE crucified our flesh.
Romans 6:11 “Consequently, you too must think of yourselves as (being) dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.”
We must think of ourselves as having crucified the flesh. We no longer live in this world but we must transform our minds through God's word according to His will.
No, the question I thought I was addressing was whether only those who had no pride had the possibility of heaven.
This, on earth, is what I believed was the original topic/discussion posed by kosta.
Dear Harley,
I pray that the Lord to sets you free of “confusion” and denial of Free Will!
Good Night ,Dear Brother!
The only trouble with this is that so many who claim to belong to Christ act as if they don't.
We must think of ourselves as having crucified the flesh. We no longer live in this world
Given the preponderance of Protestant denominations in the U.S. one must seriously question how come a country that claims to be 85% Christian can be so secular in its everyday life!
Once God sets us free from our bondage, we become ambassadors for Christ in which God leads and guides us
Christ gave all mankind a chance to be free. That only some accept His sacrifice is to their loss.
You can't even die to yourself
Humility is not limited to Christians only. There are examples of humility and dying unto oneself in pagan religions of the East.
Dr. E: Wow. That's how I responded to Kosta, too. Those words must mean something mighty powerful. 8~)
That is a true statement used in a misleading way. He loved us first, no doubt, but He doesn't make us love Him! Ergo, the reason some love Him are theirs, not His. But you offer no motives why those who love Him love Him.
Your responses do not address the essence of my question to which both of you responded: how many people would attend church and glorify God for His Glory alone, without a concomitant promise of eternal rewards? I say: none.
My experience with people has been that they humble themselves to those who hold power over them, their income, their family, their careers, etc. It is false humility. Genuine humility must come from one's heart, un-coerced, not based on fear, dependency or social strata.
Only God working in our lives can humble us
God humbled Himself for mankind out of genuine love for our wretched kind. He had no obligation to do so. Neither was He coerced, nor driven by a need. If ours is to be true humility, then it must mimic that of God, neither coerced, not borne out of need, nor obligation, but out of unconditional and unselfish love.
If that sound arrogant, it isn't like saying, "I'm a Christian today because I've humbled myself before God."
Some "Christians" would say that.
If you think you have humility, you don't
Why do you judge me?
No.
Pride is a symptom of a reprobate mind and is an abomination to God
Correct.
Does not pride rest at the very root of the most obvious sins? Murder, theft, adultery, disobedience, rebellion?
Yes.
And does it not also rest at the very root of the sins we barely notice? Want, complaint, anxiety, worry, jealousy, disbelief?
Yes.
And is it not the very reason people withhold mercy from one another – or judge one another?
Yes.
At the moment God’s adopted children realize His power love – there is nothing but abject spiritual humility in the presence of His glory.
True humility must be born out of unselfish love and not fear or ambition.
If we need help to overcome our pride, He may also permit us to suffer a “thorn in the flesh” or He may prune us Himself
Reality tells us that is not the case.
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.