Repent for your sins as evening approaches.shalom b'shem Yah'shuaCall on YHvH is my salvation
This evening begins Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.
May your name be written in the Book of Life.
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.
We believe that Christ died for our sins.
We believe that God gives everyone saving grace.
We believe that nobody can be saved if they don’t want to be. We are told that man is to engage in the Via towards eternal life. We must persevere until the end in the manner which Jesus commanded us.
“I am saying that calvinism says all have a choice, and that even those disinclined toward you still have a choice.”
How can you have a choice if you are predestined before you were born?
We met on Free Republic. :>)
Could you vote for Hillary Clinton?
California is like the U.S. itself. All kinds of people from all over the world trying to get along.
California has a larger economy than most countries. If California were its own country, it would be the seventh largest economy in the world.
What's so bad about palm trees and evergreens living side-by-side? 8~)
There’s a lot going on.
I’m still trying to tell the players without a program.
Golly, DrE. Californians just seemed most likely to be pacific to me.
(drum roll....)
Yes.
“Gee, I wonder who would benefit by former Reformers becoming pacifists?”
I’m not following...
what in the world are you doing on Free Republic?!!
Are you a liberal democrat!!
Think of it this way, when our Lord Jesus went to the Pool and told the lame man to get up and walk, was He being insensitive to the many other people who were lying around? Was it wrong of our Lord to not tell everyone, "You're healed" and have it be so? Of course not. Our Lord was exercising His grace and mercy towards one individual in a crowd. We just never talk about all the others lying around.
Our concept and theology that we have of God today is skewed. God calls us out of darkness into His light so that we will attain everlasting life. He just doesn't do this for everyone.
What we have created is a God that does not resemble the majestic God of scriptures; all-knowing, all-powerful involved in the day-to-day activities of His people as He leads and guides us. Instead we have replaced Him with a Care Bear type of god who is interested in giving us a comfy life and protects us when we go on our ski trips.
Wow, that's the BEST example I've ever seen. :O)
Nope; I consider most of the Republican Party far too left wing for my tastes.
But, I’ve voted contrarian before; also, if the Republicans put up somebody worse than what I consider her to be, then she’d get my vote. It comes down to a choice.
A choice. My reading of TULIP precludes any choices at all.
http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html says that:
T — total depravity. This doesn’t mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one’s being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.
U — unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.
L — limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.
I — irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.
P — perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.
Choices. Well, let’s see...
T: a man cannot save himself. No choice.
U: they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit. No choice.
L: The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect. No choice.
I: When God has chosen to save someone, He will. No choice.
P: Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation. No choice.
You see why we come up with terms like robot slave? No choice. Preprogrammed units walking through a scripted life. Where is the choice, sir?
And that's the point. Man can but man won't. This is the condition of man that God must overcome.
I'm gifted.
Dincha know?
:>)
I never could vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and Hillary is vehemently pro-baby-killing.
I would consider my vote to be a direct violation of: “Thou shalt not murder.”
But...I still have the choice to do so.
I do not reach the same conclusion. Jesus said:
John 16:7 : But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
In the realm of God's "interference", Jesus effectively replaced Himself with the Holy Spirit, Who is just as active today in all of our lives as Jesus ever was with those He interacted with back then. Miracles are commonplace and happen every day in all parts of the world. In fact, Jesus even implies here that God's influence is even GREATER now since He has returned to Heaven. I would agree.
God certainly did leave HIS Church to speak and teach, etc., but in no way does this diminish God's very active role in the lives of believers around the globe.
So therefore, everything except for His direct actions (miracles etc.) could be considered to be man made.
What is a miracle, i.e. in what things does God not have direct action? I would consider everything that was truly man-made to be sin.
In the same way, the Bible writings were man made, the Bible assembled was man made, the writings of the Church are man made and the Church doctrines are man made.
I don't understand this at all. :) What is the meaning of "God's inspired word"? I think that absolute miracle was paramount in both the writing of and the assembly of the Bible.
We don’t say that the Holy Spirit forsakes the laity; we say that individuals are more prone to Scriptural error than the deliberative body that we call the Magisterium.
Yes, which is why I tried to be careful to include something to the effect of "on matters of interpretation". I know you don't believe in a total "shut-out". But I do see a barrier there that is very concerning, and appears to impede a close, intimate, and personal relationship with God.
We don’t think of God as lending authority since it implies that He would take it back.
I would agree with you if you are saying that God never took back the powers He gave the Apostles. I was thinking more in terms of the ability to pass them on. :) If my buddy lends me his wrench, then it wouldn't be right for me to then lend it to someone else without his blessing. :)
Repent for your sins as evening approaches.shalom b'shem Yah'shuaCall on YHvH is my salvation
This evening begins Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.
May your name be written in the Book of Life.
“Think of it this way, when our Lord Jesus went to the Pool and told the lame man to get up and walk, was He being insensitive to the many other people who were lying around? “
Healing a lame man does not equate to the state of everlasting life.
“Instead we have replaced Him with a Care Bear type of god who is interested in giving us a comfy life and protects us when we go on our ski trips.”
Not all of us. The Reformed have replaced God with a Care Bear type of God who has placed them into an elite elect and protects them from the consequences of all of their actions and gives them a limo ride to Heaven.
“Some people would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven to quote C.S. Lewis.”
I thought that the Reformed view is that the choice of men is of no consequence.
“The fact is that our Lord Jesus shed blood only covers the sins of those who are Christians. “
The fact is that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Our Lord is for all men according to Scripture.
John 1:29, “The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
John 4:42, “and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”
1 Tim. 4:10, “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.”
1 John 2:2, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
1 John 4:14, “And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.”
and you will come back with the duelling verses that say “many” and not “all”.
We must perform a higher order mathematical function called “and” in order to resolve this. In other words, God intends all to be saved, yet knows that some will not be.
Well, we look at the hundreds of complicated, convoluted pages of the Catechism of the RCC, and then we read the Bible and find the truth.
Later we might also read the much shorter and Scripturally-based Westminster Confession of Faith or Heidelberg Confession or London Baptist Confession of Faith, and then we might choose the one that most appeals to our God-given conscience.
They are remarkably consistent because they are founded on the word of God. If they weren't founded on the word of God, if they added or subtracted to the Scriptures, if they concocted vain traditions and stated them as fact, if they encouraged men to believe in fables and to construct wooden idols and to pray to anyone other than Christ the only mediator between men and God, then they would just be another doctrine of men and an abomination to God.
But because they are Scripturally-based, they are simply joint restatements of Scriptural truths.
Re: choices. Men always have "choices." The Biblical understanding is that unless and until God has regenerated a man and given him a new heart and new eyes and ears, that man will always "choose poorly" (a great phrase from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.")
When the Holy Spirit resides in a man, that man's perspective will be wrenched from himself and turned toward God. And the only one who can accomplish such a feat of strength is God Himself.
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5
In the broader sense, keeping in mind the sovereignty and omnipotence of God who "decreed the end from the beginning," all things in life have been ordained by God for His glory.
That part is difficult to wrap our minds around. But this difficulty doesn't negate its truth. It simply calls for faith in order to embrace it. And the result of embracing that truth is comfort and security and peace in His eternal promise to those who believe in His Son as Lord and Savior.
All in all, an amazing plan.
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.
