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.
That is an mischaracterization! And in making it over somethng I asked of the poster you drag me into your mischaracterization. He did not say he does not consider you Christians. To the contrary, are we not told by God to edify one another, to admonish one another. Would a fellow Christian be edified by you mischarterizing his post, trying to paint it in the extreme? You verify the clarity of his comment because you have now exhibited ‘limited judgment’ just like we admit to falling into on occasion.
From a pastor friend:
A client brought a litter of golden-retriever puppies to my veterinary clinic for inoculations and worming. As the look-alike pups squirmed over and under one another in their box, I realized it would be difficult to tell the treated ones from the rest. I turned on the water faucet, wet my fingers, and moistened each dog’s head when I had finished.
After the fourth puppy, I noticed my hitherto talkative client had grown silent. As I sprinkled the last pup’s head, the woman leaned forward and whispered, “I didn’t know they had to be baptized.”
My great grandfather was the Baptist minister in Boones Creek and had several children. One Sunday Morning after the baptismal ceremony at church, the kids gathered up the animals about the place, to have a baptism down at the creek! When the old tomcat scratched and ripped his way to freedom from the arms of the baptiser (Uncle Henry, I think his name was), he grabbed up a handful of water and flung it at the cat scrambling to escape the creek bank, with "Aw, let him be a Methodist and go to hell."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
In the long run though - whether in this life or the one to come - we will all recognize and accept each other.
Praise God!!!
no
Let's hope he never gets around to "doing the Lord's work"
Next time, ask him for yourself and leave me out of your suppositions.
Regardless, his statement stands on its own.
He did not say he does not consider you Christians...you mischaracterizing his post
You asked him if he thought I and a few others were Christians, to which he replied...
"There are times when in my limited judgement that I believe that they depart from the belief."
Depart from what belief? A belief in Christ? The Christian belief? Or was he speaking about a belief in leprechauns or maybe the flat tax?
As much as I think the RCC is riddled with mysticism, idolatry and tyranny, I would never presume to say a Roman Catholic was not a Christian. I'm appalled at Mark's response, and frankly, I'm amazed at yours.
But A-G has the right attitude. C'est la vie.
lol. I asked the local vet in a small town nearby if I could get the kitten “spaded” like the rest of the locals have him do. He cracked up
If you are going to talk about us could you at least ping us? I'm curious, what is your definition of a Christian?
I like that passage too. How do you view the word "for" at the beginning of 13? Strong's does it this way:
NT:1063 - gar (gar); a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles): KJV - and, as, because (that), but, even, for, indeed, no doubt, seeing, then, therefore, verily, what, why, yet.
If this is true, then it would seem that there is less of a cooperative effort as we normally think of it, and it's more that God gives us the will to act according to His good purpose. It's NOT that He gives us the suggestion to act, but rather the actual will. And that will is carried out. If He only gives us suggestions, then according to the verse, some of God's works are ineffectual.
No, I said that there are a few that discuss different levels of rewards, such as the parable of the talents.
OK, I stand corrected.
If it was ALL Jesus and nothing of us, then, all men would be saved.
No, that would be a hybrid of both of our positions and neither of us would agree to it. :)
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"?
I have a vague memory of us talking before about God's "decrees" and His outward calls and inward calls. We view God wanting all men to be saved as an outward call, but not a decree. If it was decreed, then it would happen, since omnipotent God can and does get everything He wants. The decree here would be that all of the elect are saved, which I think we both agree does happen.
You cannot earn salvation, but you can lose it.
And then one can "not earn" it back again, using his free will to act. :) We disagree on what constitutes earning. The Apostolic use is not the conventional human use of the term. It is unique to your theology.
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.
How in the universe do you think that Romans 4:4 defines the word "work" throughout the whole Bible? :) There are different Greek words for "work" in the NT. And, different ones are used for Rom. 4:4 (ergazomai) and Eph. 2:9 (ergon). It CAN mean toiling for pay, but it can also mean any act. Your definition applied to Eph. 2:9 makes Paul look like an idiot, because no one ever had said that Heaven is gained by toiling for pay. That's ridiculous. To my knowledge that was NEVER taught anywhere. Why would Paul bring it up now? He wouldn't, because he didn't.
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.
If God judges us for Heaven based on our actions of love, then how is this determination made without consideration to quality or quantity (as I said before)? You don't have to know for sure, I'm just asking for a logical possibility that doesn't amount to quid pro quo, i.e. "earning", "meriting", or barter.
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.
OK, so you acknowledge that for Heaven God MEASURES. THAT'S what I want to know more about. :) How is this done?
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.
Yes, only God makes these decisions. The belief is in whether the specific promises God makes in scripture lead to assurance or to uncertainty. I suppose before going further, I would have to ask you to define your use of "assured knowledge" as you say above.
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.
No, my "testimony" determines nothing. My testimony follows what God has already ordained. What matters is that the Spirit testifies:
Rom 8:15-16 : 15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
-----------------------------
And secondly, IF God has already decided on who will be saved, then your actions are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Not true. ALL of my actions are part of God's eternal plan, therefore they have meaning. My free will actions do not determine my salvation, but they still have meaning because God has ordained them as important to His good, pleasing, and perfect will.
FK: "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 haven't found it either, which is why I neither said what you are thinking nor implied it. There is no "rule" that we are given to know when someone has fallen away permanently such that he never truly believed in the first place. I don't make that judgment. Jesus says:
John 10:27-29 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
Now, I know what this means to me. :) If the Apostolic lens alters this to mean that anyone, instead of no one, can snatch himself out of God's hands, then that is the Apostolic lens. If, however, the words of Jesus are true as they appear in scripture, then we may have assurance, etc.
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".
I fully agree.
God is not judged, man's endurance is judged.
But not based on anything like merit of course. :)
I’ve often thought of vets as I work in the garden.
How they get that big spade in those tiny bodies is beyond me.
:>)
I hate to nag so since I'm not getting an answer I won't ask again, at least for the time being. William Shakespeare once said, "This above all, to thy own self be true." It's not scripture but there is a lot of true to it.
What do you mean by "one helping"?
Do you then further say that the second half - the petitions - is useless anyway and we’re only doing it because we’re told to?
I think it is very important to notice what 1000 rightfully pointed out; the Lord's prayer is primarily about God and His will being carried out. There is not much of a petition for us with only a scant reference in the prayer for our "needs" to be provided. You may remember our Lord saying:
No, actually I don't get that AT ALL. :) Why or how could an omnipotent and loving God do that? Think about it. You are saying that our God limited His own sovereignty. For what? If you had an "uber-specific" plan that had to be completed, and if you had all the power to complete it yourself, would you turn major parts of it over to a pack of 3-year-olds who might do anything with their free wills? Of course not. If your plan was at all important to you, and you had the power, you would execute it yourself, period. That's what God is doing right now.
As to "divine condescension", perhaps our disagreement is over whether God lowered Himself TO man or IN FRONT OF man. I suspect that Apostolics and Reformers see this very differently.
I believe post 7226 is enough evidence to show that the Western Fathers thought that man has free will. Merely saying that the West was monergist is not enough. You didn't prove it then, and you haven't proven it now.
Regards
So how do you know you are a "sheep", then? Your passage speaks about God's point of view, not ours.
Regards
Endless rationalizations. Let's look at it. Here is the part that is to God:
Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Here is the part about us asking for favors
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we (have) forgive(n) those who trespass(ed) against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from (the) evil (one).
Two thirds of the prayer are supplication. I think that hardly makes it "primarily about God."
This is a typical approach to those in authority over you. First you give them praise, then you petition. The Lord's Prayer is a petition to God to sustain us, to forgive us, and to keep us safe.
It's all about us, our sustinance, our safety and our forgiveness. If the prayer ended with the first aprt, then we could say it about God. Instead, the first part leads into the second and thrid parts by establishing that He is alighty and that He can do these things for us, and then we ask Him if He would do them for us. It's supplication.
HD, when the Calvinists pray for the sick, what do they expect? For God to change His mind? Or do they praise God for causing the sickness (after all, He is behind tidal waves and hurricanes, why not sickness, right)? And when a person dies, do Calvinists say "Thank you Lord" and jump from joy?
You responded: No, actually I don't get that AT ALL. :) Why or how could an omnipotent and loving God do that? Think about it. You are saying that our God limited His own sovereignty. For what?
Oi... Well, this explains our different points of views on various Scriptures. We "apostolics" (never heard that one before) believe that God condescends to man, whether it is in BECOMING one of us, DYING as one of us, or even inspiring the Bible to be UNDERSTOOD by the men of the day (note, God doesn't inspire men with knowledge of quantum physics. He tells us what He wants us to know at OUR level of knowledge).
God became man so that man could be "god-like". To share in His divine nature. When a person loves another, that person does some "strange" things - I know, because I did when I first was courting my wife. I still do "strange" things that I wouldn't do for another person. I see God acting analagously to us, since He is our example of Love.
Do you actually think God became man because the "PLAN" forced God to follow what is in Scriptures? Is the Bible the script that God must follow or does the Bible relate what God ended up doing? If you believe the former, than there may be some truth to the idea that you worship the Bible...
Regards
We have the examples of some of the Church Fathers who expressed heretical views. Does that make them non Christian?
Do we not honour Justin Martyr, Origen and Augustine? If someone expresses non Christian views, then that is their perogative. If they express non Christian views and call them Christian views on a forum like this, then do I not have recourse to call them non Christian and the reasons why?
I am not surprised at the vehemence. Judging by the quality and depth of the arguments, the entire platform appears to be extremely shaky, especially when examined in depth.
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.