Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

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.

Infant baptism removes the original sin of Adam; the Holy Spirit is then introduced to start working in the baby so that at the age of reason, the child or adult may understand and have the faith so that the confirmation of the original baptism is confessed by the child or adult.

OK, I think I may be getting confused among the Orthodox and Latin views. These words are in my head: "laying on of hands", Chrismation, and Confirmation. I am reasonably confident that you both believe that in the typical case the Holy Spirit enters the child. How and when does this happen?

If there is nothing that we can do to attain salvation, then how is perseverance required?

God ordained that perseverance is required:

Matt 24:12-13 : 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

And, God also ordained that He would ensure this perseverance:

Phil 1:6 : ... being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

-------------------------------

What happens if a member of the Reformed Elect pull up a spiritual LaZBoy?

It cannot happen permanently per the above. It is common for true Christians to fall away temporarily, but God ALWAYS either brings them back or brings them home. :)

If you say that that person was never an elect and this is proof, then that is at least consistent.

Sure, we can never have conclusive proof about any OTHER man one way or the other, so we form opinions. If someone who appeared to be a believer then became apostate by spouting anti-Christian drivel for the rest of his life, then I would make an educated guess that he was never really a true believer in the first place.

So then, we are left with no exterior evidence of whether a person is of the elect or not.

That's right. The God-provided science of men cannot prove to you that I am of the elect. That, of course, is by design. God's declared plan was that we witness to all peoples of all nations. If we could identify the elect, then we wouldn't bother with the rest.

[continuing:] Hmm, does that mean that one of the elect will find it impossible to not persevere? Robot slave again?

ALL of the elect will find it impossible to not persevere. God said so, as I indicated. I do not see this as robotic, but if you see it as so, then your argument is with God and His word.

We have it possible for mankind to attain Heaven because of the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Otherwise, unless He individually brings us to Heaven, such as the thief on the adjoining cross, or Elijah, then we wouldn’t be able attain everlasting life.

Do you see the thief as a special exception, and not consistent with what is otherwise taught in scripture? I do not. Grace through faith, period. :) His perseverance was his dying testimony. He was no different than any of us.

From our point of view, pretty much so.

The Catechism explains:

293 Scripture and Tradition never cease to teach and celebrate this fundamental truth: “The world was made for the glory of God.”134 St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it”,135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: “Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand.”136 The First Vatican Council explains:

This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel “and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . .”137

294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us “to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace”,138 for “the glory of God is man fully alive; moreover man’s life is the vision of God: if God’s revelation through creation has already obtained life for all the beings that dwell on earth, how much more will the Word’s manifestation of the Father obtain life for those who see God.”139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God “who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude.”140

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170

315 In the creation of the world and of man, God gave the first and universal witness to his almighty love and his wisdom, the first proclamation of the “plan of his loving goodness”, which finds its goal in the new creation in Christ.

316 Though the work of creation is attributed to the Father in particular, it is equally a truth of faith that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are the one, indivisible principle of creation.

317 God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help.

318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to “create” in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence “out of nothing”) (cf DS 3624).

319 God created the world to show forth and communicate his glory. That his creatures should share in his truth, goodness and beauty - this is the glory for which God created them.

320 God created the universe and keeps it in existence by his Word, the Son “upholding the universe by his word of power” (Heb 1:3), and by his Creator Spirit, the giver of life.

321 Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with wisdom and love to their ultimate end.

322 Christ invites us to filial trust in the providence of our heavenly Father (cf. Mt 6:26-34), and St. Peter the apostle repeats: “Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you” (I Pt 5:7; cf. Ps 55:23).

323 Divine providence works also through the actions of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to cooperate freely with his plans.

324 The fact that God permits physical and even moral evil is a mystery that God illuminates by his Son Jesus Christ who died and rose to vanquish evil. Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

Genesis 6:

5
5 When the LORD saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6
he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
7
So the LORD said: “I will wipe out from the earth the men whom I have created, and not only the men, but also the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I made them.”
8
But Noah found favor with the LORD.
9
These are the descendants of Noah. Noah, a good man and blameless in that age,
10
for he walked with God, begot three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11
In the eyes of God the earth was corrupt and full of lawlessness.
12
When God saw how corrupt the earth had become, since all mortals led depraved lives on earth,
13
he said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all mortals on earth; the earth is full of lawlessness because of them. So I will destroy them and all life on earth.

Genesis 18:

20
6 Then the LORD said: “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave,
21
that I must go down and see whether or not their actions fully correspond to the cry against them that comes to me. I mean to find out.”
22
While the two men walked on farther toward Sodom, the LORD remained standing before Abraham.
23
Then Abraham drew nearer to him and said: “Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?
24
Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it?
25
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to make the innocent die with the guilty, so that the innocent and the guilty would be treated alike! Should not the judge of all the world act with justice?”
26
The LORD replied, “If I find fifty innocent people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27
Abraham spoke up again: “See how I am presuming to speak to my Lord, though I am but dust and ashes!
28
What if there are five less than fifty innocent people? Will you destroy the whole city because of those five?” “I will not destroy it,” he answered, “if I find forty-five there.”
29
But Abraham persisted, saying, “What if only forty are found there?” He replied, “I will forebear doing it for the sake of the forty.”
30
Then he said, “Let not my Lord grow impatient if I go on. What if only thirty are found there?” He replied, “I will forebear doing it if I can find but thirty there.”
31
Still he went on, “Since I have thus dared to speak to my Lord, what if there are no more than twenty?” “I will not destroy it,” he answered, “for the sake of the twenty.”
32
But he still persisted: “Please, let not my Lord grow angry if I speak up this last time. What if there are at least ten there?” “For the sake of those ten,” he replied, “I will not destroy it.”

Jonah 3:

3
So Jonah made ready and went to Nineveh, according to the LORD’S bidding. Now Nineveh was an enormously large city; it took three days to go through it.
4
1 Jonah began his journey through the city, and had gone but a single day’s walk announcing, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be destroyed,”
5
when the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast and all of them, great and small, put on sackcloth.
6
When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in the ashes.
7
Then he had this proclaimed throughout Nineveh, by decree of the king and his nobles: “Neither man nor beast, neither cattle nor sheep, shall taste anything; they shall not eat, nor shall they drink water.
8
2 Man and beast shall be covered with sackcloth and call loudly to God; every man shall turn from his evil way and from the violence he has in hand.
9
Who knows, God may relent and forgive, and withhold his blazing wrath, so that we shall not perish.”
10
When God saw by their actions how they turned from their evil way, he repented of the evil that he had threatened to do to them; he did not carry it out.

Exodus 32:

6
Early the next day the people offered holocausts and brought peace offerings. Then they sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to revel.
7
With that, the LORD said to Moses, “Go down at once to your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, for they have become depraved.
8
They have soon turned aside from the way I pointed out to them, making for themselves a molten calf and worshiping it, sacrificing to it and crying out, ‘This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!’
9
I see how stiff-necked this people is,” continued the LORD to Moses.
10
“Let me alone, then, that my wrath may blaze up against them to consume them. Then I will make of you a great nation.”
11
But Moses implored the LORD, his God, saying, “Why, O LORD, should your wrath blaze up against your own people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with such great power and with so strong a hand?
12
Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent he brought them out, that he might kill them in the mountains and exterminate them from the face of the earth’? Let your blazing wrath die down; relent in punishing your people.
13
Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, and how you swore to them by your own self, saying, ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky; and all this land that I promised, I will give your descendants as their perpetual heritage.’”
14
So the LORD relented in the punishment he had threatened to inflict on his people.

1 Samuel 15:

4
2 Saul alerted the soldiers, and at Telaim reviewed two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah.
5
Saul went to the city of Amalek, and after setting an ambush in the wadi,
6
warned the Kenites: “Come! Leave Amalek and withdraw, that I may not have to destroy you with them, for you were kind to the Israelites when they came up from Egypt.” After the Kenites left,
7
Saul routed Amalek from Havilah to the approaches of Shur, on the frontier of Egypt.
8
He took Agag, king of Amalek, alive, but on the rest of the people he put into effect the ban of destruction by the sword.
9
He and his troops spared Agag and the best of the fat sheep and oxen, and the lambs. They refused to carry out the doom on anything that was worthwhile, dooming only what was worthless and of no account.
10
Then the LORD spoke to Samuel:
11
3 “I regret having made Saul king, for he has turned from me and has not kept my command.” At this Samuel grew angry and cried out to the LORD all night.

2 Kings 20:

1
In those days, when Hezekiah was mortally ill, the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, came and said to him: “Thus says the LORD: ‘Put your house in order, for you are about to die; you shall not recover.’”
2
He turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD:
3
“O LORD, remember how faithfully and wholeheartedly I conducted myself in your presence, doing what was pleasing to you!” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
4
Before Isaiah had left the central courtyard, the word of the LORD came to him:
5
“Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people: ‘Thus says the LORD, the God of your forefather David: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears. I will heal you. In three days you shall go up to the LORD’S temple;
6
I will add fifteen years to your life. I will rescue you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; I will be a shield to this city for my own sake, and for the sake of my servant David.’”

John 2:

1
1 On the third day there was a wedding 2 in Cana 3 in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
2
Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
3
When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4
4 (And) Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
5
His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6
5 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.
7
Jesus told them, “Fill the jars with water.” So they filled them to the brim.
8
Then he told them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” 6 So they took it.
9
And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom
10
and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
11
Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs 7 in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

and so on.

It sounds to me like God can change His mind because of the prayers and pleadings of His people.

I believe that it was touched on before. The whole Adam and Eve scenario is the mechanism whereby we are powerfully instructed and shown what it is that we are and why. Adam and Eve freely wounded and diminished their natures and passed that wounded nature on to us. It is up to us to accept God’s grace and allow Him to pull us up into everlasting life with Him.

In yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act” (404). This “state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam’s, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin.

Though Adam’s sinful act is not the responsibility of his descendants, the state of human nature that has resulted from that sinful act has consequences that plague them: “Human nature, without being entirely corrupted, has been harmed in its natural powers, is subject to ignorance, suffering and the power of death, and has a tendency to sin. This tendency is called concupiscence” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 77), but is distinct from original sin itself.

The Church has always held baptism to be “for the remission of sins”, and, as mentioned in Catechism of the Catholic Church, 403, infants too have traditionally been baptized, though not guilty of any actual personal sin. The sin that through baptism was remitted for them could only be original sin, with which they were connected by the very fact of being human beings. Based largely on this practice, Saint Augustine of Hippo articulated the teaching in reaction to Pelagianism, which insisted that human beings have of themselves, without the necessary help of God’s grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, and thus denied both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good.

We do not and have never believed that man is capable of reaching Heaven on his own.

To begin with, let’s understand the meaning of heretic versus apostate. The heretic retains full faith in Jesus Christ. Now how do heresies abound and sometimes flourish?

Very often in the history of Christianity, “reformers”, by whatever name, have aspired to return to “the early Church”. The Church of their own day, for whatever reason, fails to live up to what they think Christianity should be: in their view there has been a falling away from the beautiful ideals of the early Church.

Despite superficial differences in certain appearances, the worldwide Catholic Church today remains the same Church that was originally founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and the other apostles back in the first century in the ancient Near East. The early Church, in other words, was always nothing else but the Catholic Church.

Let us go through a partial list of heresies and we can see which ones fit.

Gnosticism. The heretical theory that salvation comes through some special kind of knowledge, usually knowledge claimed by a special elite group. Gnostic theories existed before Christianity, and the Gnostics adapted the Gospels to their own views and for their own purposes, even composing pseudogospels, embodying their particular ideas and doctrines. Gnosticism held matter to be evil and hostile to the human spirit; it also essentially denied the truths of Christian revelation. Secular historian Jacob Burckhardt described the Gnostics as “speculative enthusiasts” who embraced Christianity only as a platform for Platonic and Oriental ideas. Gnosticism as an organized sect or body of beliefs has long been extinct, but Gnostic ideas persist and surface in some form in nearly every major heretical version of the Christian faith.

I look around at many posters and see the Gnostic influence throughout their work.

Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul; for them Christianity was purely a gospel of love to the exclusion of any law.

Marcionists flourish here on FR.

Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new “Church of the Spirit”. The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This claim meant that their fanatically rigorous views concerning morality superseded the authentic revelation of Christ that had been handed down in the Church. The heresy of Montanism, which claimed the great Tertullian (160-220) himself, was condemned by several Eastern synods and, finally, by Pope Zephyrinus around the year 202.

There are a few Montanists here too.

Novatianism. A schism that became a heresy. It originated with Novatian, a Roman priest who became an antipope, claiming the papacy in 251 in opposition to the true pope, St. Cornelius. The Novatianists adopted a moral rigorism similar to that of Donatism (see above). Those guilty of grave sin were excluded from the Church permanently, and absolution was refused to those guilty of the sins of murder and adultery.

There are some who would be their own Pope.

Subordinationism. A general name for all the fourth century heresies that admitted only God the Father as God. See the entries above for Arianism, Anomeanism, Macedonianism, Modalism, and Semi-Arianism; all of these heresies are forms of Subordinationism.

Various forms of this were resurrected during the Restoration Movement.

These are the heresies, folks, along with their definitions, from http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/kwhthd_ancntheresies_july05.asp

At Baptism, the Holy Spirit is brought into the child in order to remove the stain of original sin. The priest asks that the Holy Spirit enter the child during the Sacrament.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.htm says that:

1213
Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.”5

1240
In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister’s words: “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” In the Eastern liturgies the catechumen turns toward the East and the priest says: “The servant of God, N., is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” At the invocation of each person of the Most Holy Trinity, the priest infuses the candidate with the water and raises him up again.

1241
The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one “anointed” by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king.41

1242
In the liturgy of the Eastern Churches, the post-baptismal anointing is the sacrament of Chrismation (Confirmation). In the Roman liturgy the post-baptismal anointing announces a second anointing with sacred chrism to be conferred later by the bishop—Confirmation, which will as it were “confirm” and complete the baptismal anointing.

1243
The white garment symbolizes that the person baptized has “put on Christ,”42 has risen with Christ. The candle, lit from the Easter candle, signifies that Christ has enlightened the neophyte. In him the baptized are “the light of the world.”43

The newly baptized is now, in the only Son, a child of God entitled to say the prayer of the children of God: “Our Father.”

1265
Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,”69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

1266
The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;

giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;

allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.

Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

If God has ordained perseverance, and He ensures that perseverance is guaranteed, then what effort is required? If it’s His will, and His actions, and His perseverence, then what in the world does He need (some of) us for?

That’s interesting circular logic: all true Christians fall away and are brought back so that shows a true Christian. All untrue Christians fall away and are not brought back (or never were, they just appeared to be there), so that by definition they are not true Christians. Could you expand on the bringing back process? How does one know if one is brought back?

I agree that the thief is a special exception. Jesus brought him to Salvation by His own direct action. We have no recourse to such action; we go along in the fashion that He directed us.

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.