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.
I wrote confusingly:
“No emotions exist.” should be “No, emotions exist.” (Emotions do exist.)
So Jesus is saying it's ok to despise non-believing children? At what age?
No, because despising is not the only alternative to NOT despising. Jesus says that we are not to hate any person. The command is only to not despise. There is no counter command here. But to the point, I was clearly referring to believing children ONLY vs. all Christians in terms of direct applicability HERE. I was not referring to believing children vs. unbelieving children.
Except ye be converted, and become as little children.. [KJV]
Is Jesus saying the little one is converted or that the converted become as little children?
The NIV says:
Matt 18:3 : And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Therefore, I do not think that the order here is the point of the verse. Rather, the idea is that our faith must be innocent and child-like. It must be a completely trusting faith for it to be true. Only THAT type of faith is what saves. So, to answer your question, the "little one" is converted in order to have child-like faith and then become saved.
So, now you are spreading disinformation to the uneducated and unsuspecting? Why don't you tell the world that Cyril Lucaris was among not so few a Patriarch of Constantinople who fell victim to heresy (Calvinism in this case). Unfortunately, he was neither the first nor the last to stray.
After years of his satanic teachings and flirting with Calvinsits and Anglicans (all this was done out of his personal hatred for anything Latin), a Council (Synod) was called in Jerusalem in 1672 to refute Cyril's 18 articles of faith. He was rightfully deposed as the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Orthodox Church issued 18 Decrees refuting each and every statement made by Cyril Lucairs in his false "Confession" that you peddle as "orthodox" compared to the exposition of the Orthodox Faith of St. John of Damascus
I would post all 18 decrees and relevant questions included, but the document is lengthy. You may read it at the link provided. I will only close with the Synod's Epilogue, which reaffirms that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Catholic and Apostolic, always was and always will be:
Let it be sufficient for the reputation of the falsehoods of the adversaries, which they have devised against the Eastern Church, that they allege in support of their falsehoods the incoherent and impious Chapters of the said Cyril [Lucaris].
And let it be for a sign not to be contradicted {cf. Luke 2:34} that those heretics have unjustly make maliciously false statements against us, as though they spoke the truth. But let it be for a sign to be believed, that is for reformation of their innovations and for their return to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which their forefathers also were of old, and [who] assisted at those Synods and contests against heretics, which these now reject and revile.
For it was unreasonable on their part, especially as they considered themselves to be wise, to have listened to men that were lovers of self and profane, and that spoke not from the Holy Spirit, but from the prince of lies, and to have forsaken the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which God hath purchased with the Blood of His own Son, {cf. Acts 20:28} and to have abandoned her.
For otherwise there will overtake those that have separated from the Church the pains that are reserved for heathens and publicans. But the Lord who has ever protected her against all enemies, will not neglect the Catholic Church. To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
In the year of Salvation 1672, on the 16th [day] of the month of March, in the Holy City of Jerusalem: —
I, Dositheus, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and of all Palestine, declare and confess this to be the faith of the Eastern Church.
The enormity of your blunder of "refuting" St. John of Damascus with Cyril Lucaris' vomit is incomprehensible but not surprising.
Ping to the removal of the Lucaris’ vomit mentioned in 6,550.
He avoids nothing if you read his four books.
Which part are you objecting to, specifically?
Anthropomorphisms and figures of speech. God is Love. There is no single instance where any of the biblical authors reveals that God is hate. Love does not hate, although some men hate love.
A loving God as portrayed in the churches/Church today is incompatible
Incompatible with what? With hate? Correct. St. John reveals that God is Love.
But I find nothing "incompatible" about God in the Old or New Testament when viewed from God being in sovereign control. I would suggest you have the wrong soteriology
Christ came to fulfill the law and the prophets. If you engage your verse generator, you will find that law and the prophets is synonymous with love.
God did not come to establish that He is in full control, but to save mankind by freeing it from the bondage of death. If you think otherwise, your soteriology is an oxymoron.
No just an oxymoron.
We confuse love with approval or with permission. God does not approve of wickedness but He gives every human a chance to repent and be saved. God does not hate anyone. He only offers salvation, even to the most unrepentant.
No, because despising is not the only alternative to NOT despising. Jesus says that we are not to hate any person. The command is only to not despise.
That's very creative.
To the rest, I don't know how to begin to communicate. We look through different glasses.
I also did a little study of this myself. Of the ninety plus times the word "hate" is used in the scriptures it is almost always used in regards to the wicked hating God, not God hating the wicked (e.g. "...I will render vengeance on My adversaries, And I will repay those who hate Me. Deut 32:41). In other places David said
This, btw, is consistent with our Lord Jesus' statement that if we don't hate our mothers, fathers, etc. more than Him, we have no part.
In fact, with the exception of Esau I can find no indication that God is the driver behind "hate". Rather, of the 90 plus times it is used, as with Esau in Hebrews 11 who scorned his birthright, man is the driver behind hating God. This underscores original sin. We hate God by nature.
Given this, I would say your article with it's questions "Does God love everyone? And if so, how has He loved them", is entirely backwards. Rather the question should be, "Does anyone love God". God does not hate nor is there a manner in which He hates. To ascribe a human emotion like hate to God is, well, uncharacteristic.
Rather, to answer my own question, men hate God. God has to change this human nature to love Him. The real question is why doesn't God change everyone's nature to love Him? God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and compassion on whom He will have compassion. Simply because all men do not love God is an indication that God did not change this attitude in all men. Those who do not love God will never be friends with those who hearts God has changed.
All of the so-called "Confession" listed.
Non-believers do not do the spiritual things of God. They certainly have been raised up by God to do other things.
While I used to go with the innocent thing about being like a child (child like being self-referential and therefore not informative), what I got from observing kids is they know what they want and they go for it -- especially when they're too young to know much about fear. They are single minded.
A pooping kid is doing nothing but pooping and doing so enthusiastically and with purpose. A kid smearing chocolate pudding all over himself is ditto. Crying, they do nothing but whole-heartedly cry. Loving, they bury their face in your chest or arm or what have you and hug as hard as they can. No holding back. You see a toddler deciding whether or he or she can make the ascent up a book case, and you see unabashed and unreserved focus.
So should we be in our love for the Lord! Pedal to the metal, ninety to nothing, let 'er rip!
So censorship is your answer to Cyril Lucaris?
I guess its better than murder.
But then you can't murder him as he was already murdered.
I thought you were a peacenik?
The child-like mind is fully present in the moment where everything is new and filled with wonder.
No. That was you. You ignored the preceding verses that set the context.
As explained by the verse in context...
In your fabricated context maybe, but not the context in which it was handed down.
"coals of fire" further distinguishes God's children from those not numbered among His family, those who are enemies of His children and thus, enemies of Him
Apparently, you assume that any enemy of yours is automatically an enemy of God. Is your judgment really that good? More to the point, is everyone else's? If the enemy in question is also a member of your church, who gets the coals?
Indeed, the Greek for "burning coals" is our English word anthrax...
Sooo... because we use the Greek word for "coals" to identify a disease that produces skin lesions that look like coals, you think that somehow proves that Paul was talking about putting a pox on someone. Is that right?
Just out of curiosity, what's the Hebrew word for "burning coals"?
Is your shepherd not one of God’s sheep?
Are not the martyrs under the altar God’s sheep?
One of the repeating errors of our Protestant friends is that they misunderstand the error of the individual versus the error of the Church.
The Church does not err; only the individual that practices hubris does. That is why the Lutherans et al can embrace the portion of Augustine that does not fall within Church approval.
My FRiend, you are a blessing to me.
If I read your posting anywhere near correctly, you are about to either journey East or swim the Tiber.
If not, then it is my own failing. Please do the right thing, as Dr. Laura enjoins. But if so, then the Lord be praised.
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.