We get nice shiny swords.
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 Lord cured me of two very bad habits which were in essence spiritual diseases. I had the sicknesses because they came before God in my life. They were my idols. You need to have a serious talk with yourself and ask yourself which do I want more, my smoking etc. or Jesus? He can end the addiction right away. I am living proof.
As for writing, you need to write every day even if you don't want to. Pick a time when you can do it, and treat it like going to work. Don't have any distractions. Try to do a set number of pages a day, every day, and you'll be surprised how easily it goes.
The only counsel I have for you is this: whether it is to write a thing or save a thing written, whether to wear this or not, whether to park here or there, whether to eat this particular hamburger or not, whether to smoke this particular cigarette or not --- and so on --- in every detail of life, remain in constant prayer with God, asking Him and following Him.
Don't worry about making a bad decision, commit everything to Him - no matter how trivial - and He will guide you, one step at a time.
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. – Proverbs 3:5-6
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Romans 8:1
I cannot guarantee this is 'in truth' for you, but I know that in much of my writing I am in need of further edification before 'putting it down on a page' ... it would surprise many how much edification comes through reading at FR! But there are so many ways for God to edify us; being open to His instruction is the key to it all 'working together for good in them that are the called according to His purpose.'
Amen, A-G!
And we generally know what "leanings" are right and wrong. It's not that difficult. Does our action or habit or desire bring glory to His name, or is it something we would prefer to hide from Him?
As if we ever could.
Kosta never read the Lord’s command to sell ones garment and buy a sword (Lk.22:36)
Amen, 1000s!
It's no coincidence what verse follows the temptation verse in 1 Corinthians...
Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." -- 1 Corinthians 10: 13-14"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
Our bad habits do become our idols, something we care about more than God. Therefore the habits which do not glorify God do not actually benefit us, but debilitate and destroy us.
As for writing, you need to write every day even if you don't want to. Pick a time when you can do it, and treat it like going to work. Don't have any distractions. Try to do a set number of pages a day, every day, and you'll be surprised how easily it goes.
Amen! Great advice. Writers write. Writing is hard; the fun part is having written. That's the allure of a place like this. It's easy to just speak your thoughts onto paper. And so I tell myself this is all good practice. 8~)
"Buy the truth, and sell it not" -- Proverbs 23:23
What a beautiful testimony, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so much for citing Acts -- I find these passages profoundly moving.
Thank you for your sublime witness! Truly the Holy Spirit has been your partner in writing....
We get nice shiny swords.
It's not the story of the shepherd killing his sheep.
"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep."
Yes, but don’t bring a sword to a gunfight!
Those nice long capes are really good for hiding large caliber Weatherby magnums and Mossberg shotguns.
I agree with you completely on this detail.
God does not dine on (human) lamb chops.
You Catholics were always very devious.
A Jesuit invention, no doubt.
Actually the Illuminati invented it, the Jesuits improved the design, and the Council on Foreign Relations approved it. :)
Wait’ll you find out about about the secret nerve gas that we spray around the air intakes of predominately Protestant buildings that infects all inside and makes them pray the Rosary and venerate Mary. We’re coming for you...
If your definition of static in this case includes unchanging, changeless, that's exactly what it means. I think you are confusing this with the immaterial energies of the Holy Trinity or Godhead.
Perhaps I chose the wrong word. What I meant was mono-dimensional, mono-faceted, "simple" vs. complex, etc. IOW, if God can fully encompass being fully man and fully God at the same time, then why can't He be fully love, fully just, and fully wrathful at the same time? If I am understanding the Apostolic position correctly then if God is only love then He CANNOT also (ever) be angry or wrathful. Why is this? I do not see how the ABILITY to have righteous anger and wrath is inconsistent with the ABILITY to love. They are not inconsistent, God is a complete being and is multifaceted.
God is changelessly experiencing the emotions of love and hate? This is internally inconsistent.
Why? Can you love your wife and at the same time have righteous anger toward any unworthy clergyman? Did you change something if you felt both at the same time? I don't think so. Since righteous anger is no sin, why can't God do that too?
If God hates something today and loves something tomorrow it violates immutability, so you postulate an unchanging infinite immaterial ball of conflicting emotions. Turn the microscope around.
No, this isn't what I said. :) I said if God hates thing "A" today, but then loves thing "A" tomorrow THEN it violates immutability. It has to be the same thing. That God ALWAYS loves good work "B" and ALWAYS hates sin "C" does NOT violate immutability. No conflicting emotions here. He is consistent.
FK: "Well, for example on the one hand there is a grounded, sobering love, and on the other is a self-destructive, obsessive "love"."
This isn't love or isn't a fault of loving. We confuse many things for love. God's love through us is not an emotion; but this is another topic...
I agree with the first part. But also, God doesn't have human emotional failings; however, how can it be said that He does not have emotions? Did God create us in His image with something (a good something) He Himself does not possess? Godly human love is an emotion, and He says He wants it from us. Surely this cannot be out of envy? :)
FK: "There is anger that causes rash and unwise, impulsive decisions, and there is righteous anger."
"Anyone who is angry with his brother.."
Is this a denial of righteous anger? Consider these:
Mark 3:4-5 : 4 Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent. 5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.
Titus 1:7 : 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; ... KJV [This allows for righteous anger, or the "soon" would have been unnecessary and misleading.]
Eph 4:25-27 : 25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. 26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: 27 Neither give place to the devil. KJV
Paul explains nicely exactly what Jesus did. He was angry but did not sin. If that is possible, then righteous anger must exist.
FK: "I just meant that with all the emotions, God always correctly shows them."
Perfect anger, lust, pride, envy... :)
In a sense, "Yes". :) Now, I think it is correct that all core emotions can be used by humans for evil, but can all also be used for good? I think so. But here there is a problem. How many separate emotions are there and what are their names? I sure don't know. Are lust, sinful pride and envy really separate emotions or are they all simply bastardizations of the core emotion love? I think more likely the latter, as God does not show these. But anger God DOES show, so I consider that a separate emotion.
I honestly can't think of Biblical uses of lust or envy in a good way, but of course there is plenty on pride:
2 Cor 5:12 : 12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.
2 Cor 7:4 : I have great confidence in you; I take great pride in you. I am greatly encouraged; in all our troubles my joy knows no bounds.
2 Cor 8:24 : Therefore show these men the proof of your love and the reason for our pride in you, so that the churches can see it.
I "think" that pride, lust, and envy are all included with the "7 deadly sins", but obviously it cannot be in all cases, if Paul's inspired word is correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for loopholes or anything. :) I'm just saying that human failings in the emotional realm cannot be projected onto God, such that it is therefore impossible for Him to have emotions.
FK: "We humans misuse our emotions all the time."
We misuse our God-given instincts. Emotions are instinctual states. Applying animal instincts to God leads us to strange theology.
I'm not sure what this means? Does it mean that emotions themselves do not really exist for anyone because they are instinctual states? I haven't heard this contrast before. Doesn't instinct just mean to follow one's nature? If so, doesn't God have a nature?
Thank you also for your replies. I enjoy our discussions.
Really.
You know of no human shepherd willing to take up his cross and follow Christ.
Sad.
Wait a minute. What about all those missionaries who go all over the world to preach the good news with little or no remuneration.
What I meant was mono-dimensional, mono-faceted, "simple" vs. complex, etc. IOW, if God can fully encompass being fully man and fully God at the same time, then why can't He be fully love, fully just, and fully wrathful at the same time?
mono-dimensional
I'm assuming that you're obviously not referring to spatial dimensions, but past that it can have many meanings. If you mean having more than one attribute: Of course. If you mean a different state or personality: No.
mono-faceted
Same as above, with the caveat that God does not have 'parts' if you look at facets this way.
"simple" vs. complex
Is God complex? Yet another confusing term if used theologically, it's more at home in psychology.
If you mean, again, capable of being described using more than one attribute: Yes. If you're veering off into parts: No. We say God is simple and uncompound. Not divisible into elements.
You seem to be struggling here to find a way to describe God having (conflicting) emotions. Otherwise, you could just say 'we can describe God somewhat - using more than one attribute. And be done with it. The struggle is to attribute human emotions and change and still maintain immutability and perfection. It can't be done, hence the futile search for more and better phrases.
if God can fully encompass being fully man and fully God at the same time, then why can't He be fully love, fully just, and fully wrathful at the same time?
I think you'll recognize this as non sequitur, counselor. Also bear in mind we are talking about the Holy Trinity here and the Divine in essence. Your question is leading toward: If Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, why can't the divine nature be like human nature? How can one answer other than: Because it's not, else they'd be the same.
So where comes this human understanding of God's anger, etc.? St. John Damascene helps explain again:
Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, land such like expressions.
Can you love your wife and at the same time have righteous anger toward any unworthy clergyman?
Can you? Try it. Put yourself in the place where the emotion of love toward your wife arises. Then do the same for anger. Now love, now be angry. Now be love/angry. Now call your mental health professional.
Emotions are a state of mind - even persons with multiple personalities have one at a time.
Does it mean that emotions themselves do not really exist for anyone because they are instinctual states? I haven't heard this contrast before. Doesn't instinct just mean to follow one's nature? If so, doesn't God have a nature?
No emotions exist. They occur instinctually as opposed to being controlled by will or reason. They are part of our God-given instincts, and directing them properly towards the divine goes hand in hand with proper use of our instincts. They can be used as guides for spiritual development - sometimes in the negative, more effectively in the positive.
Instincts are innate behaviour patterns, having effect based on internal and external stimuli. Survival, reproduction are the two primary ones. Our instincts are behavioural patterns to survive and reproduce... in other words.
You can see here that ascribing this use of "instincts" to God is nonsensical. Having a divine nature, or any nature for that matter, does not necessarily require either instincts or passions.
thanks for your reply.
You know of no human shepherd willing to take up his cross and follow Christ.
relate to:
It's not the story of the shepherd killing his sheep. "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep."
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.