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.
1. What is the purpose for the non-elect to repent? What happens if they do? What happens if they don’t.
2. What is the purpose for the elect to repent? Is it strictly a mechanical act? It would seem so.
There were more than one apostate bishop, starting with Marcion, Tertullian, and so on. There were also many an apostate Bishops of Constantinople, including Lucaris. Judas was an Apostle, yet Christ referred to him indirectly as the devil. Perhaps these people are there to test the faith, to challenge the Church. The Church is made up of sinners, FK, unless they are Reformed and God won't let them is no more.
BTW a Patriarch is not a "rank" but honor.
At the time, were his followers wrong to follow him?
Yes, of course they were. Obedience to a bishop is a given. But only if the bishop exercise economy (latitude within the doctrine), not if it is heretical.
What should his followers have tested his teachings against, if anything?
The whole wisdom of the Church: the scriptures, the patristic writings, the earliest documents, the Ecumenical Councils, hesychastic fathers...etc.
The Bible?
Have you ever read Philokalia volumes? They are laced with biblical references. There is no Church document that is not referenced to a Bible.
Cyril would get an "A" there
"A" for an apostate, yes.
How about the Eastern Church? Now here he would have failed of course, as proved out later
Not just the Eastern side of the Church, the whole Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Please see post #6878. It must be God's will for man to repent. The evidence is all around us. If God really desired for all men to come to Him, they would come to Him. God commands, and then He must grant what He has commanded.
You are not asnwering the question: does this include the LDS, or any sect, dneomination, cult, whatever, who call on Christ?
“The issue that is really puzzling you is why would God require man to repent unless He gave man the ability to repent? Frankly, I don’t know. It simply the way it is. “
No it isn’t. The issue that is puzzling me is why would all men be commanded to repent if the elect have been selected before they were born and the non elect are going to hell. Are there different temperatures of hellfire in Reformed theology? Does a repentent non-elect get the occasional beer?
Another issue that is puzzling me is why would the elect be commanded to repent if they are going to heaven anyway. A couple of you guys have voiced some weak and incomplete thoughts about temporal punishment or even levels of reward in Heaven - I see where Joseph Smith was influenced in his theology here - but I can see nothing that stands on its own and certainly nothing Scriptural.
You see why we think of Calvinism as illogical and evil in itself?
However, and this is key, the calvinist also believes that REGENERATION PRECEDES individual Faith.
As Jesus said, "Except a man is born again, he canNOT see the kingdom..."
Once the will is renewed through regeneration, THEN he can repent and believe as an act of will.
If you don't get the sequence "regeneration, faith, repentance" correct, then you'll never understand calvinism.
But, I am just a paduwan in the tradition of someone or other. :>)
With respect, the evidence is NOT all around us.
The Bible tells us that the Grace of God is available to all men. Jesus came to save the whole world. That is what the Bible teaches. That is what the Church teaches.
Then all men should be able to repent and be saved, but choose not to. It's their choice, not God's. He chose to offer. They refused. Our cooperation is required. God won't drag the unwilling to Him.
Of course it does.
God doesn’t check denominational background to determine who gets saved.
Even Catholics and Orthodox! :>)
Yet, what is the name of the Lord?
Then why the call for all men to repent?
There isn't a "club". There is either the saved or the unsaved. You assume that everyone was meant to go to heaven or that God must give a "fair" shake to everyone. The fact is we are all wicked destined, deservedly, for hell. God happens to save some of us, for reasons only known to Him, to do His will to bring glory to Him. Making a good decision on our part has nothing to do with anything. We saw the light because He so willed it. All we can do is wonder at His mercy and grace.
I understand the sequence, thanks to the efforts of the Reformed here.
It’s just that as one peers a little more closely, one sees that it just doesn’t hold together when measured against the entire Bible.
Because all are given enough light to have no excuse.
See John 1, Acts 14, and Romans 2.
You can’t hold someone guilty of ignoring the command, when you don’t deliver the command.
The non-elect will never repent. God will call and call but they will never come. Noah spent 120 years preaching all the while he was building an ark that would only seat 8 people.
The purpose of the elect to repent is to submit to God. He is holy and He expects it of us. We just don't appreciate HOW holy God really is. We can only come to Him through Christ without being consumed.
All men ARE able.
They are not WILLING. They are given a choice and they reject it.
I send you to Santa Anita and say to you, “Bet the #1 horse in the 5th race. Sure winner.” Then someone tells you I am a crazy old loon, and you are inclined against me. You get there and say, “That crazy old loon doesn’t know horses any better than I know quantum mechanics; I’m doing what I want.”
The #1 in the 5th wins. You were told, but you didn’t do it. Why? You trusted your own judgment more than mine. It was STILL your choice.
Never claimed that God has to do anything.
I just look at the Bible to see what He says. And He says nothing about creating men in order to trash them. God says that He loved the whole world so much that He sent His Son. He says, too that the Judgement in Heaven is of what people have done.
The Gospels depict a God of Love; Who has laid out the path for us in order to attain everlasting life. The early Christians called Christianity Via - the Way. It is a Way, a journey, a life, it is not a prebirth condition like your hair colour.
Creating men to discard like a dirty diaper is not indicative of the God of Love; it depicts a whimsical and emotionally unstable God of Self Indulgence, much like the Greek, Roman and Norse gods. Why would Jesus go through His Crucifixion and Resurrection for some men? It says that He did it for all men.
“The non-elect will never repent. God will call and call but they will never come. “
Then why does God tell all men to repent if the non elect will never repent? That doesn’t seem very productive.
And why does God call them at all, if they are non elect and it won’t do any good anyway? That doesn’t seem very productive either.
“We can only come to Him through Christ without being consumed.”
Could you elaborate on this please?
I thought that in Reformed theology that man does not have a choice. I don’t understand this analogy.
That is incorrect. In reformed theology man does have a choice. The Jedi can correct me on this, but I’m pretty sure I’m correct.
He may be an authority in the Orthodox Church, but he is no authority in Judaism.
Jewish Encyclopedia says (emphases mine)
Satan has no power of independent action, but requires the permission of God, which he may not transgress. He can not be regarded, therefore, as an opponent of the Deity.
Further, the same source says (again, all emphases are mine):
This view is also retained in Zech. iii. 1-2, where Satan is described as the adversary of the high priest Joshua, and of the people of God whose representative the hierarch is; and he there opposes the "angel of the Lord," who bids him be silent in the name of God. In both of these passages Satan is a mere accuser who acts only according to the permission of the Deity.
But, after Babylonian and Persian occupation, this changes. Thus
The Chronicler (third century B.C.) regards Satan as an independent agent, a view which is the more striking since the source whence he drew his account (II Sam. xxiv. 1) speaks of God Himself as the one who moved David against the children of Israel. Since the older conception refers all events, whether good or bad, to God alone (I Sam. xvi. 14; I Kings xxii. 22; Isa. xlv. 7; etc.), it is possible that the Chronicler, and perhaps even Zechariah, were influenced by Zoroastrianism
It is in the "Apocrypha," which you Protestants reject, that we find New Testament teachings on the devil. The language is very much something we are familiar with:
The evolution of the theory of Satan keeps pace with the development of Jewish angelology and demonology. In Wisdom ii. 24 he is represented, with reference to Gen. iii., as the author of all evil, who brought death into the world; he is apparently mentioned also in Ecclus. (Sirach) xxi. 27, and the fact that his name does not occur in Daniel is doubtless due merely to chance. Satan was the seducer and the paramour of Eve, and was hurled from heaven together with other angels because of his iniquity (Slavonic Book of Enoch, xxix. 4 et seq.). Since that time he has been called "Satan," although previously he had been termed "Satanel" (ib. xxxi. 3 et seq.). The doctrine of the fall of Satan, as well as of the fall of the angels, is found also in Babylonia (Schrader, l.c. p. 464), and is mentioned several times in the New Testament.
So, the teaching of the Church and of the Protestants regarding Satan is patently "apocryphal." Just remember that by accepting the NT, you also accept its "apocryphal" demonology even if you as a group reject the "Apocrypha." The roots are Babylonian, not Judaic.
Although Satan is not mentioned in "Apocrypha" by name, it is part of the "lower-class" belief among the Jews in the pre-Messianic era to associate the devil with Satan. This belief then finds its way into the New Testament, as the JE continues:
The high development of the demonology of the New Testament presupposes a long period of evolution. In the Gospels the beliefs of the lower orders of society find expression, and Satan and his kingdom are regarded as encompassing the entire world, and are factors in all the events of daily life.
Judaism itself eventually experienced change and acceptance of the more popular view. The dates are significant.
Talmud, moreover, proves that, according to the older view (until about 200 C.E.), punishment was inflicted by angels and not by Satan. In the course of time, however, official Judaism, beginning perhaps with Johanan (d. 279), absorbed the popular concepts of Satan, which doubtless forced their way gradually from the lower classes to the most cultured. The later a midrashic collection the more frequent is the mention therein of Satan and his hosts. The Palestinian Talmud, completed about 400, is more reticent in this regard; and this is the more noteworthy since its provenience is the same as that of the New Testament.
So, what then about Church exorcism and Baptism (which includes exorcism)? It is clearly in conflict with Torah's idea of who and what Satan is. It is not even close. It is a product of latter-Judaic heterodox teachings derived from Babylon and Persia which we accept as "gospel" because it is in the Gospels, and other parts of the New Testament! But, in reality, it was a popular belief among certain sects, which included Christians.
That's why I said I have unanswered questions regarding the devil.
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.