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.
Of course it makes a difference, it just doesn't AFFECT salvation. The difference is that harm is done to others, and ourselves. And, we will likely suffer earthly discipline, as we discussed earlier, for our sins. Since that discipline can take any form, I am FURTHER motivated to not sin. It IS a difference.
Well, plus, in heaven you get a back row seat behind a column.
Ah, perhaps we are nearing a breakthrough. You are saying that Biblical "partiality" is synonymous with the English language terms "one-sided, unfair, prejudiced, and unjust". The KEY is that all of those English language terms are from the human perspective. So, you would say that God is impartial means that God is not unfair, IN HUMAN TERMS, etc. The Apostolic position is that God offers every man a "fair" chance at a grace plus works salvation IN HUMAN TERMS, etc. Somehow, some way, that God's ways are not man's ways does not apply to the Apostolic salvation model. For that model, God MUST adopt human standards of one-sidedness, fairness, prejudice, and justice.
This is a big disagreement among us. We would say that it is perfectly fair for God to choose whom among His creation He wants to be in Heaven. Apostolics would say that would be unfair UNLESS He gave everyone an equal shot at being chosen. Those are purely human standards, and in THIS case they are wrong because they limit God's sovereignty.
Yes, this is exactly my assessment as well. It's funny, on another thread I made a statement along the lines of "a little knowledge can be dangerous", and they immediately agreed! But we weren't talking about the same thing. :)
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.
Hi Kolo! Good to see you again.
[Re: Christ on the cross:] OK, what you are saying here is that Christ "finished" taking care of your version of original sin. That is fine and I acknowledged that understanding. But of course to us, since this operation gets ZERO people into Heaven, it doesn't really SEEM like Christ "finished" anything. So, I should have elaborated when I said "nothing". It's just that to us this meaningfulness for what Christ did is comparatively weak to what we say He actually accomplished. Given that you and I both use the phrase "Christ died for our sins", to me the Apostolic belief conveys a comparative accomplishment of "nothing" because no one gets into Heaven just because of that. To me, ALL of the elect get into Heaven just because of that. IMO, this latter view is what gives power to the words "Christ DIED for our sins". I don't think Christ died to give us a free will possibility for salvation, I think He died to SAVE us, period.
A monergist are we, FK? HD would approve. :)
"Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the two shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat"
And you never will until we all arrive in heaven. The only reason we are given in scripture as to why God selects one over the other is simply to display His righteousness.
If people would simply step out of this western Renaissance narcissism they have about themselves, they would realize that man is not created for God to love. Christians are created for God's glory.
This is not to minimize the fact of God's love for His children. It only serves to illustrate that our purpose is to glorify God. Just so that we don't think we're better than those who God has not called, one should remember that God chooses the foolish of this world to confront the wise.
1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Oh, I do, I do. :O)
And the other portion?
1 Cor 13:13
So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
You would take away humanity’s hope if they are not of the elect. Their faith is meaningless as well since they will go to hell regardless. Without faith and hope, there is no love.
Calvinism is evil because it removes meaning from people’s lives; they must go through life knowing that they are abandoned by God even before death. No love, no faith and no hope.
As opposed to John 3:16.
I believe in the Trinitarian God as described in the Nicene Creed. Does that make me one of the elect (cf 1 John)?
If I trust God absolutely (which I do), does that make me one of the elect? If I confess that Jesus is Lord to the world, does that make me one of the elect?
This little exercise in inanity gives me the creeps.
May we Catholic (especially in the West) give up guitar Masses, Wiccan nuns, Protestant prayer barns, the laification of the Scraments and Sacrifice of the Mass, and all the other progress that came out of the ass end of the hippies and revolutionaries ‘empowered’ by Vatican II.
All knowledge and wisdom does come from above. Agreed.
Acts 8:14-18
Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles’ hands ...
Acts 19:1-6
While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul traveled through the interior of the country and came (down) to Ephesus where he found some disciples. He said to them, “Did you receive the holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answered him, “We have never even heard that there is a holy Spirit.” He said, “How were you baptized?” They replied, “With the baptism of John.” Paul then said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.
All of these people were baptized before they received the Holy Spirit, not after.
I was emphasizing the status or definition of the ‘elect’ under Reformed versus Catholic and therefore was not clear. I do not believe that the ‘non-elect’ will go to Heaven, but I believe that the composition of the ‘elect’ is significantly different and for different reasons than that of the Reformed.
There are two meanings of ‘elect’ - the OT and the NT meanings.
I. THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament applies the term elect, or chosen, only to the Israelites in as far as they are called to be the people of God, or are faithful to their Divine call. The idea of such an election is common in the Book of Deuteronomy and in Is., xl-lxvi. In Ps. civ, 6 and 43, and cv, 5, the chosen ones are the Hebrew people in as far as it is the recipient of God’s temporal and spiritual blessings; in Is., lxv, 9, 15 and 23, they are the repentant Israelites, as few in number “as if a grain can be found in a cluster” (ibid., 8); in Tob., xiii, 10, they are the Israelites remaining faithful during their captivity; in Wisd., iii, 9, and iv, 15, they are God’s true servants; in Ecclus., xxiv, 4, 13, and xlvi, 2, these servants of God belong to the chosen people.
II. THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament transfers (excepting perhaps in Acts 13:17) the meaning of the term from its connection with the people of Israel to the members of the Church of Christ, either militant on earth or triumphant in heaven. Thus I Pet., I, 1, speaks of the elect among the “strangers dispersed” through the various parts of the world; I Pet., ii, 9, represents them as “a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people”, called from darkness into God’s marvellous light. St. Paul, too, speaks of the elect (Romans 8:33) and describes the five degrees of their election: they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (loc. cit., 29, 30). He returns to the idea gain and again: II Thess., ii, 12 sq.; Col., iii, 12; Tit., I, 1, 2; II Tim., ii, 10. St. John gives the title of elect to those who fight on the side of the Lamb against the powers of darkness (Revelation 17:14). According to St. Luke (xviii, 7), God hears the cries of his elect for vengeance; according to the first two Evangelists he will shorten the last days for the sake of the elect (Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27).
If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God’s goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17). In the sentence “many are called, but few are chosen”, the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matthew 20:16; 22:14).
The whole world is the intent of God; those who actually accept God’s grace are necessarily less than the whole. Part of our instructions by Jesus is to evangelize the whole world; if we don’t bring the Good News to all, then we run the risk that some of them who could be saved will not be.
I just replied to Dr. E. about the Catholic definition of ‘elect’ and what we view God’s declarations to us as to who comprises it. Please see 7133.
We have no quarrel with those who say that God stretches out His Hand of Mercy to give us His Grace. We agree. We merely disagree on who He gifts His Grace to.
I am really fascinated by this belief in temporal punishment. Does it have Scriptural support?
Can you provide examples?
God has freely given men free will to choose. That is how the Church reads the Scriptures as a whole. This does not mean that God bows out of the process. I believe Phil 2:12-13 is the best verse that describes that cooperation and interaction at the personal level.
So, for you every works-based verse that mentions "judgment" is salvation vs. hell.
No, I said that there are a few that discuss different levels of rewards, such as the parable of the talents. However, most of them ARE INDEED the difference between heaven and hell. Jesus Himself is pretty clear on that.
At the salvation judgment, I can just see God standing there and asking an Apostolic why He should let him into Heaven. Then, I presume, the Apostolic will try to list all the wonderful things he has done in his life and hope that it is enough to receive God's mercy and passage into Heaven. When it is my turn, I am simply going to point to my "Mouth", whose name is Jesus Christ. He will do all of my talking for me. BTW, that's always an option for you too, if you ever get stuck. :)
God's judgment of the individual is not based on what Jesus did on the cross, because HIS work was effective for ALL men. I have already listed for you over a dozen verses that show that Jesus died for ALL men, for ALL sins ever committed. If it was ALL Jesus and nothing of us, then, all men would be saved. If it is as you say, then WHAT determines why God goes AGAINST His own will that "all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth"? Revelation tells us that God is not a liar, so man MUST be part of the equation, part of WHY some men DO go to eternal damnation.
You cannot earn salvation, but you can lose it.
Loving itself is of course work in a real sense.
Your definition of "work" is not the biblical definition. A "work" is something you do for payment (Rom 4:4). We do not love for payment. Just the fact that you discuss "counting love works" shows that you are misunderstanding the whole point of love. Love doesn't "count" how many times you did "x" or how many times you sacrificed for the sake of the other.
You say that you didn't do it to receive something, but out of pure love. That is fine. HOWEVER, are you not ALSO saying that this is EXACTLY what you will be judged on in order to get into Heaven?
God uses our response to determine whether we actually believe Him, whether we trust Him, whether we love Him. Our response is measured by our actions, not by our words.
I only meant that God reaches us through the Bible, and also in a more direct personal sense, through specific leading. God can also use specific people in certain circumstances for specific purposes, but none of this speaks to Sola Scriptura. I don't know what you're saying.
Forget it, it's not on topic. I'll let you off the hook for now.
All of us CAN know about ourselves, but no one else with absolute certainty. It is for THIS reason that we Reformers minister to the whole world instead of just a few on the list. This is God's plan.
We can know about ourselves, but some thought will indicate that even THIS knowledge is not assured knowledge that we will enter heaven. It is GOD who makes such decisions, not our own self. You are making your own feelings of yourself the determinant on whether you are entering heaven and yet you hold to God's sovereignty? It sounds like YOU are determining whether you are going to heaven, not God.
And secondly, IF God has already decided on who will be saved, then your actions are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, we place our hope in Christ, and part of that hope is in that the words Christ spoke were true. If they were, then we are told that we may be sure of our salvation and have confidence in Him during our lives that He is good for His word.
And what is His Word? Believe in Him 20 years ago and you will enter heaven? I haven't found that quote yet. I HAVE found these, though...
And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. Mat 10:22
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. Mat 24:13
It appears that Jesus desires that we believe in Him every day and to obey the Father's Will everyday to be saved. It seems that HE that endures will be saved. It doesn't say that "If Jesus endures to the end". God is not judged, man's endurance is judged. God provides the means to be saved for ALL men. But one must endure in Christ until the end to be saved. Naturally, God provides us with the Holy Spirit so that we may endure - but WE must endure, just the same. If man is not part of this equation, then it is God who is judged.
Regards
Don't you get that God LIMITS HIS OWN SOVEREIGNTY?
Look to the cross, one with the corpus on it. You may begin to understand what "divine condescension" means.
Regards
Actually, we argue along the lines that, given all of Scripture, it wouldn’t fit with what God has told us about our purpose and our relationship with Him that He wants us to have.
We really aren’t arguing about ‘fair’ - I’d say that that was an interesting side discussion - we are arguing about man’s purpose and man’s instructions as related to us by God. We are saying that man is instructed to reach out for God’s saving Grace, and all things come from that. Reformed doctrine says that it doesn’t matter if man reaches out or not, the Grace is put into him, and then all things come from that.
We also argue about what free will comprises. We believe that man is singly predestined to heaven unless he refuses God and then is rightly Judged to hell. I am unable to understand what the Reformed believe about free will because of the apparent variation in beliefs, but the statement that sticks with me is that nothing that man does matters.
We are reminded here that God is Holy and from His holiness come the attributes of love, justice, righteousness, etc.
He is sovereign because He is holy; there is no god like Him. The more I understand who God is, the more I understand my necessary obedience because he requires it. There is no thought of spending my time here sinning all I want to because I am Elect; my struggle is to not sin at all. My desire, because of my changed heart, is to be holy as He has commanded me to be. God is God, and we are His creatures
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.