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.
There are arguments and then there are dumb arguments.
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,--whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,--be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly. -Council of Trent
Why can't you ask for forgiveness from your future sins? Doesn't God know what you will do next week, month, year?
...what determines who goes to heaven and who doesn't? Repentance. Once I repent of sin because of God's grace, I am forgiven. Until that point, I am not forgiven. ...Adam's sin universally effected mankind. Thus, Christ's death is expiation for ALL men who turn to Him in repentance.
But that's not what you said above. You stated that your sins are forgiven up to that point. Future sins are not covered. So some sins must not be covered.
you: Except yours of course. :)
A thing is true because God says it.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. – Revelation 1:8
I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. – Revelation 1:18
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. – Deut 4:2-3
I and [my] Father are one. – John 10:30
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. – Romans 8:9
And that is fine as far as it goes – but it is incomplete to use the concept of time which is part of the Creation to describe the Creator.
God’s Name is I AM. He is timeless. Time is part of His Creation. There was a beginning of time, but there will be no end of time.
God the Father had no beginning, He is not caused, there is no origin of Him. He was not begotten.
Jesus Christ was begotten. He is “in” the beginning. Indeed, Christ is the beginning – everything that was made, was made by Him and for Him. He is the First Cause and the Final Cause, Alpha and Omega:
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. – I John 4:9
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. – John 1:1-3
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20
It is a subtle difference which the terms you prefer to use do not capture because it speaks of the One. And truly, the Father and the Son are One – there is no bright line between Them (imagine what a mess it would be for us if there were!):
So both Names for God are Truth: I AM, Alpha and Omega.
Likewise, the Names Alpha and Omega should not be anthropomorphized to a timeline.
Everything flows from Genesis to Revelation. From the beginning, God is gathering His family for the new heaven and new earth. The purpose for this heaven and earth is the next heaven and earth.
To use an analogy, if the First Cause is the blueprint for the house – the Final Cause is the home in which we dwell.
But the Final Cause, the Omega, is not the end of time. Indeed, from our point of view it is the beginning of eternity, time without end.
Christ, Who is the Son of God the Father and is One in Him, was begotten, He lived and died and He lives without end:
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:3
I guess that’s a yes.
AG, I didn’t mean to be curt in my last reply. Didn’t know how to begin.
Respectfully, unless you’re God, it’s a belief also known as a doctrine. But you’re just repeating what God told you, right?
It’s sometimes difficult to have a discussion about religion with someone who believes they speak for God. I think I should just retire from it for a while.
best regards...
WoW! Thanks for the ping. No wonder he was persecuted. He told the truth. I had no idea that there were Orthodox around back then who really got it. :)
You are reading into it and making up something that has no parallel. The blood was a sign.
Apparently, the all knowing God in this instance could not tell which household was Egyptian and which Hebrew, so He "needed" a visible marker!
For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am the LORD. [Ex 12:12]
"The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. " [Ex 12:13]
Also, previous verses show that the lamb could be a goat! [Ex 12:5] The lamb did not atone for their sins; and no one was drinking its blood.
The lamb WAS sacrificed for the life of the inhabitants of that house
This "sacrifice" was not to atone for any sins.
Why don't you Google "seder" and "thanksgiving" and see what you come up with?
When someone whose man-made "church" says that the early Church did not understand scriptuires and had it all wrong...yet could collect manuscripts you consider inspired, I need not go any further.
How can you be sorry for something you have not yet done? That concept is beyond a simpleton like myself. Sorry.
You stated that your sins are forgiven up to that point. Future sins are not covered. So some sins must not be covered.
A sin is something that goes against the will of the Father. Sin cannot occur outside of time because ALL creation is subject to time and only creation can offend God's will. Thus, a sin has not occured yet. As a result, future sins are not covered because they don't exist yet.
Christ's death has the potential to forgive ALL men's sins. However, we know that ALL men will not ask for forgiveness. Sin is not covered until it is repented of - it is God doing the forgiving. Even Jesus does not presume to demand the Father to forgive us, because HE intercedes for us - HE ASKS FOR OUR SAKE that we be forgiven. Thus, even despite His death, Jesus continues to offer His once completed expiation for the sake of men who beg for forgiveness, as 1 John states. MAN must ask GOD for forgiveness - which is what Jesus CONTINUES to do. Present tense.
Regards
***... mankind was given a chance to be redeemed... by submitting to, following and imitating Christ.***
Salvation is possible if man does a, b, c, & d.
Nothing but working your way to heaven.
***Christ gave His life to the devil...***
Yep, thank God for the Reformation and restoration of the Church from this kind of devil in charge theology.
Apparently, the all knowing God in this instance could not tell which household was Egyptian and which Hebrew, so He "needed" a visible marker!
It could also be seen as those who follow the L-rd's commandments are saved; Jew or gentile. Those who refuse to do what the L-rd commands; Jew or gentile will perish. Being a member of a denomiation will not save; calling on the Name of the L-rd will save. That is one way to spin it.
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
Wrong. Most Protestants will tell you man generate this repentance same as what jo kus stated.
2Co 7:9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us.
2Co 7:10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.
2Ti 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
You're catching on. ;O)
Sure, that's true. And while we do hold very lively discussions on these topics most will tell you it doesn't make any difference. These are more subtle points of view that have little to do with justification, sanctification, atonement, election, predestination, and all the other far more important things.
I am very set in my ways on baptism but I can assure you, if a Reformed Presbyterian church opened up across the street from me, I would think nothing of leaving my Southern Baptist church.
Then if you sinned right before you die, where would you go? Would your sin be forgive?
Nice name...
Welcome to the thread.
Marker Post
I’d go a little further than that. The Baptists came out of the Anabaptist (Zwingli) movement which generally had a heaping helping of Calvin, and the Presbyterians came out of the Wesleyan movement who was noted for opposing Calvin.
There are some great theological gaps between the two, not just baptism.
Well, I hadn't expected that reply from a person of the Reformed persuasion. If it is true, that is good to hear, with the caveat that there is no repentance without grace from above. I imagine you'd agree, since you posted the pertinent Scriptures.
Regards
Sounds like a question my 60 year old Dad asked me.
So what would happen to a guy who jumped off a building to commit suicide and changed his mind half way down?
I will tell you the same thing...
I leave it in God's hands and His mercy.
To further add, I guess that person would, at best, be "heading" to Purgatory. Such a person would need purification before joining in union with the Almighty God.
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.