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.
See post 7,018.
He (Paul) was among those who felt that the elect were allowed to boast
Good grief
Here again, the word boast can mean "joy" or "rejoice". When it does mean "glory", Paul says to give all the glory to God, as Alamo-Girl has so eloquently stated.
Lately a day doesn’t pass that I don’t find more cohesion and certitude in Scripture. Life’s too short. 8~)
Next to Christ, who is more eloquent in presenting God's truth and joy and comfort and hope to men than Paul?
The fact that God chose the baddest of the bad to become His greatest human voice is enough to make me a believer. No man could change that much. It must be the work of God alone.
"But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." -- 2 Corinthians 10:17
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. 9 He who has an ear, let him hear. 10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. 10 This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
The revelation proclaims CERTITUDE to those living on the earth during this trial....however one view the timing of the trial.
If I know that I will not die until 2010, then 2008 and 2009 can be extremely free of any care whatsover.
Captivity & Sword are predetermined this scripture says. You can't change it; might as well go out preaching the gospel.
Yes, in some beliefs words of scripture can mean anything one wants them to mean.
Concerning certitude and Paul:
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19
So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Cor 3:1-7
As Dr. Eckleburg quoted it:
Absolutely right. The persecution was wrong and should never have occurred.
Why is it that RC's are so reluctant to acknowledge the terrible deeds their sect did in the name of JESUS? I've seen RC posters proclaiming that it was good they persecuted those that refused to submit to their sects authority and I have yet to see a RC rebuke them for it.
x>I’m not the one who calls sinners to repentance, kosta. That would be Jesus. You need to take this one up with Him
Christ did not say: "believe anything you like; as long as you call on My name it's okay."
6,975 posted on 09/21/2007 10:32:22 PM MDT by kosta50
But Yah'shua did say:
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
NAsbU John 15:10
"If you keep My commandments,
you will abide in My love;
just as I have kept My Father's commandments
and abide in His love.
Amen A-G. We have nothing to offer that He has not provided.
He may be an authority in the Orthodox Church, but he is no authority in Judaism. Jewish Encyclopedia says (emphases mine) ......
There is no doubt that many Jews in those days had unsound theology. We are told about some of them in the Bible. But there is no way you can pin this on the OT righteous, the OT doesn't teach it. You can say that many Jews had it wrong at the time. The bottom line is that your church and my church both agree on the issue.
[Jewish Encyclopedia:] 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.
Zech 3:1-2 : 3:1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, "The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"
The natural interpretation of this would have satan correctly being an enemy of God. There were strained and wrongful interpretations, but I'm sure the OT righteous had it right. For anyone to say that this passage has satan being a "mere accuser" is ridiculous.
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."
We reject the Apocrypha as being inspired, and so they should not be included with the Holy Bible. Nobody says they are useless or "all lies" or something. Luther himself prefaced the Apocrypha with this statement:
In addition, The Bible itself sans Apocrypha is patently clear that satan is evil. I certainly didn't need the Apocrypha to come to the correct conclusion.
Church government.
Ok. I pick chiliasm. :) Knock yourself out.
Calvin considered the chiliasts' errors too childish even to need refutation because they were without scriptural support. - The Reformation's Repudiation of Chiliasm
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could post a reference?
I'm sure you don't.
“It may not be as simple as I’ve portrayed, but it is surely accurate.”
No, I’d say you had simplified it to the point of inaccuracy, which surprises me since you have by far the deepest knowledge of Orthodoxy among the Protestants on this thread.
You said THAT I was wrong, but you did not say why. I do not base my opinion on hundreds of hours of pouring through Apostolic documents. I base it on hundreds of hours of reading posts from you guys! :) I thought I was being fair.
I said that in your theology Jesus finished nothing since man has the ultimate power to lose his salvation and win it back again. I know that the Orthodox really don't speak of it in those terms, but the Latins do. So, I said that for you Christ laid the groundwork, but it's up to you to complete the deal. What's incorrect about that?
I have had it explained to me that for you Christ's work on the cross is applied at baptism (usually infant), and of course no one has committed any sins by then. So, it must normally refer to whatever one's version of original sin is. But ALL of you say that future sins are NOT covered by Christ's work. For you that is a separate issue. So, other than original sin, what sins of yours did Christ die to remit? If I sinned by offending you with my post, then did Christ die to forgive that sin? I think you would have to say "no". For that I would have to apologize to you (and I do if I did :) and I would have to confess to a priest and receive absolution for that sin. What has this to do with Jesus on the cross?
I have seen the question asked a hundred times: "do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, past, present, and future?" The answer from your side is always "No".
“I said that in your theology Jesus finished nothing since man has the ultimate power to lose his salvation and win it back again. I know that the Orthodox really don’t speak of it in those terms, but the Latins do. So, I said that for you Christ laid the groundwork, but it’s up to you to complete the deal. What’s incorrect about that?”
Oh dear; probably you should have spent those hours pouring over Apostolic and patristic documents, FK! Christ finished man’s bondage to death and restored to man what was lost by the Sin of Adam, the potential to become divinized, to actually be a creature in the image and likeness of God. “Taking advantage” of that opportunity is up to us. Its available to everyone...like God’s grace.
I'm not sure it's a pagan name. The languages in which it is used all can make a word play on Sun/Son and East/Rising of the Sun/Resurrection of the Son.
Welcome back, Kolo. Much obliged.
Sure he did; He freed us from the bondage of death. He made it possible for us to be fully restored in the image and likeness of God (theosis).
His sacrifice applies to all whom are willing to come to Him, follow Him, and imitate Him.
But ALL of you [Catholic/Orthodox] say that future sins are NOT covered by Christ's work
They are, but we must repent of those sins in order for them to be forgiven. That's why we have the sacrament of confession.
If I sinned by offending you with my post, then did Christ die to forgive that sin? I think you would have to say "no".
Your sins are forgiven if you repent of them. Christ did not die on the cross for you to be free to sin, but to become free of sin. Unrepentant sins are not forgiven. Confession is a must.
For that I would have to apologize to you (and I do if I did :) and I would have to confess to a priest and receive absolution for that sin. What has this to do with Jesus on the cross?
Again, repentance is the key. But it seems alien to your mindset that you should repent of your sin in order for it to be forgiven. If you believe your sins are forgiven without repenting of them, then repentance becomes an "empty ritual," which may explain why the Protestants may not have such "guilty conscience," but rather consider themselves righteous in their justification that no amount of wrongdoing can affect.
I have seen the question basked a hundred times: "do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, past, present, and future?" The answer from your side is always "No".
It is "No" if you don't repent.
Your comment on this is not in line with general commenatry. As an accuser, his job was to accuse, just as a prosecutor is charged to exaggerate the wrongdoing in order to strengthen the government's case. Satan merely got carried away and God put him in his place. But he is not portrayed as an enemy of God out there to compete with God or to draw those who are of God away from Him.
In addition, The Bible itself sans Apocrypha is patently clear that satan is evil. I certainly didn't need the Apocrypha to come to the correct conclusion.
Not the Old Testament. And all references form the New Testament that involve satan as the devil come from "Apocrypha."
Why is it that Protestants are so reluctant to acknowledge the terrible deeds their sect did in the name of Jesus?
I believe it was you who began casting stones inside of the glass house, brother. The Pope has apologized to the Jews and to Protestants who were persecuted by overzealous men in the name of the Church. Where is the Protestant apology?
Oh, well, considering that there is no central "mouthpiece" for this group of people, I suppose we won't hear any apology, will we? Does that mean you can go around and blame the Catholics for all of the evil perpetrated in the name of Christ?
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.