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.
Are you inferring that a woman why marries but cannot have children or chooses to not have children is not saved? Can never be saved?
“”if I understand the argument-whether someone can lose their salvation. I’m saying that the historical evidence shows that church fathers never taught this and that the Church (East and West)””
Perhaps you should read these ones
“Christ shall not die again in behalf of those who now commit sin, for death shall no more have dominion over Him; but the Son shall come in the glory of the Father, requiring from His stewards and dispensers the money which He had entrusted to them, with usury; and from those to whom He had given most shall He demand most. We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be SHUT OUT FROM HIS KINGDOM. And therefore it was that Paul said, ‘For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.’” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:27:2 (A.D. 180
“[T]hat eternal fire has been prepared for him as he apostatized from God of his own free-will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the apostasy, he now blasphemes, by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment [upon him] as being already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his apostasy to his Maker, not to his own voluntary disposition.” Justin Martyr, fragment in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, 5:26:1 (A.D. 156).
“It is the Spirit then which is in God, and not we viewed in our own selves; and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father, because that that Spirit is in us, which is in the Word which is in the Father. When then a man falls from the Spirit for any wickedness, if he repent upon his fall, the grace remains irrevocably to such as are willing; otherwise HE WHO HAS FALLEN IS NO LONGER IN GOD because that Holy Spirit and Paraclete which is in God has deserted him), but the sinner shall be in him to whom he has subjected himself, as took place in Saul’s instance; for the Spirit of God departed from him and an evil spirit was afflicting him.” Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, 3:25 (A.D. 362).
“Let us admonish each other. Let us correct each other, that we may not go to the other world as debtors, and then, needing to borrow of others, suffer the fate of the foolish virgins, and FALL from immortal salvation.” John Chrysostom, Concerning Statues, 21 (A.D. 387).
“It is, indeed, to be wondered at, and greatly to be wondered at, that to some of His own children—whom He has regenerated in Christ—to whom He has given faith, hope, and love, God does not give perseverance also.” Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, 18 (A.D. 427).
I don't doubt that Peter may have traveled to Rome. I also don't doubt that Peter may have help Paul estblish some churches in Rome. All of this is, of course, speculation built on hearsay of church fathers. But that doesn't matter. What you have to establish is that Peter actually ruled from Rome as head of the Church in a Pope-like capacity. You will find the church fathers to be silent about this since up until the 4th century many of the churches ruled themselves. And, while Peter was adored by the fathers, the biblical evidence indicates that James was head of the Jerusalem Council-not Peter.
It is interesting in my mind that the second Pope after the dead of Peter was not John as one would naturally suppose since he was the last living Apostle. Rather (if memory serves me correctly) it was Linus. Why didn't the Church elect the last apostle to be Pope?
BTW-With the seven churches listen in Revelations, who's failings was it? The Church who commanded them?
“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the PLAN OF THE CHURCH flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).
BTW,Dear Brother. This is before the 4th century
“”It is interesting in my mind that the second Pope after the dead of Peter was not John as one would naturally suppose since he was the last living Apostle. Rather (if memory serves me correctly) it was Linus. Why didn’t the Church elect the last apostle to be Pope?””
“And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.” Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42 (A.D. 210).
So you see... Saint John certainly played an important role in the Church.Perhaps more important then being Pope
I am making no inferences. The bible says one of the ways to be saved is for a women to have children.
So you are saying that all women who have babies are saved?
***Can you see angels? ***
I saw angels once. It was on a ball field, and this angel came to me and said he would help the team win the pennant... no, wait, that was a movie I was watching as I fell asleep last night :>)
1 Tim 2:15 — she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
We are not saved because we have children. Children are a gift. The phrase "she shall be saved in childbearing" refers to the pain of childbirth and the fact that if we realize God gives us our children, as He gives us everything else, we will bear the pain more easily.
You have a very strange perception of 1 Timothy 2.
From Calvin's Commentary on 1 Timothy 2...
The weakness of the sex renders women more suspicious and timid, and the preceding statement might greatly terrify and alarm the strongest minds. For these reasons he modifies what he had said by adding a consolation; for the Spirit of God does not accuse or reproach us, in order to triumph over us, when we are covered with shame, but, when we have been cast down, immediately raises us up. It might have the effect (as I have already said) of striking terror into the minds of women, when they were informed that the destruction of the whole human race was attributed to them; for what will be this condemnation? Especially when their subjection, as a testimony of the wrath of God, is constantly placed before their eyes. Accordingly, Paul, in order to comfort them and render their condition tolerable, informs them that they continue to enjoy the hope of salvation, though they suffer a temporal punishment. It is proper to observe that the good effect of this consolation is twofold. First, by the hope of salvation held out to them, they are prevented from falling into despair through alarm at the mention of their guilt. Secondly, they become accustomed to endure calmly and patiently the necessity of servitude, so as to submit willingly to their husbands, when they are informed that this kind of obedience is both profitable to themselves and acceptable to God. If this passage be tortured, as Papists are wont to do, to support the righteousness of works, the answer is easy. The Apostle does not argue here about the cause of salvation, and therefore we cannot and must not infer from these words what works deserve; but they only shew in what way God conducts us to salvation, to which he has appointed us through his grace. "Through child-bearing" To censorious men it might appear absurd, for an Apostle of Christ not only to exhort women to give attention to the birth of offspring, but to press this work as religious and holy to such an extent as to represent it in the light of the means of procuring salvation. Nay, we even see with what reproaches the conjugal bed has been slandered by hypocrites, who wished to be thought more holy than all other men. But there is no difficulty in replying to these sneers of the ungodly. First, here the Apostle does not speak merely about having children, but about enduring all the distresses, which are manifold and severe, both in the birth and in the rearing of children. Secondly, whatever hypocrites or wise men of the world may think of it, when a woman, considering to what she has been called, submits to the condition which God has assigned to her, and does not refuse to endure the pains, or rather the fearful anguish, of parturition, or anxiety about her offspring, or anything else that belongs to her duty, God values this obedience more highly than if, in some other manner, she made a great display of heroic virtues, while she refused to obey the calling of God. To this must be added, that no consolation could be more appropriate or more efficacious then to shew that the very means (so to speak) of procuring salvation are found in the punishment itself. If they continue in faith In consequence of the old translation having used the expression, "the birth of children," it has been commonly thought that this clause refers to the children. But the term used by Paul to denote "child-bearing" is a single word, τεκνογονία, and therefore it must refer to the women. As to the verb being plural, and the noun singular, this involves no difficulty; for an indefinite noun, at least when it denotes a multitude, has the force of a collective noun, and therefore easily admits a change from the singular to the plural number. Besides, that he might not represent all the virtue of women as included in the duties of marriage, immediately afterwards he adds greater virtues, in which it is proper that godly women should excel, that they may differ from irreligious women. Even "child-bearing" is obedience acceptable to God, only so far as it proceeds from faith and love. To these two he adds sanctification, which includes all the purity of life which becomes Christian women. Lastly follows sobriety, which he formerly mentioned, while he was speaking about dress; but now he extends it more widely to the other parts of life. "But she shall be saved"
Having children and pain in childbirth are NOT part of anyone's justification. We are justified by faith in Christ's atonement alone.
And babies, lots of babies :>)
1) Thus there is no actual "consensus patrum" if you just gave two church fathers who disagreed.
2) "Elect" refers to those who have been chosen by God to receive His grace. If someone does not persevere until the end, then by definition they were not among the elect in the first place.
God is not imprecise.
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" -- Philippians 1:6
Sounds like you defined away the whole theology of the P in TULIP. The elect always persevere because those who persevere are by definition the elect.
And you have the assurance you're elect and so does FK, for example; but if FK doesn't persevere, he wasn't really elect, even though he had assurance. And vice-versa...
“If someone does not persevere until the end, then by definition they were not among the elect in the first place”
It was quoted accurately.
Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, 3.16.8):
“Perseverance...is due to the purpose of God [in saving men and thereby bringing glory to his name], to the work of Christ [in cancelling men’s debt and earning their righteousness ], to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [in sealing men in salvation and leading them in God’s ways], and to the primal source of all, the infinite, mysterious, and immutable love of God.”
After God has regenerated someone, the person’s will cannot reverse its course. The person is indwelt and led by the Holy Spirit and nothing and nobody can separate them from the love of God. God has changed that person in ways that are outside of his or her own ability to alter fundamentally, and he or she will therefore persevere in the faith. It is the seed that fell on good ground and bore much fruit (persevered). Seed fell: on hard ground and Satan takes it with no fruit; rocky ground that had some fruit but when trials came died; among thorns and bore fruit until the cares of the world choked it and died. None persevered since the seed fell in places not prepared by the sower like the good ground had been.
Jesus said that many will say “Lord, Lord” but he will say “I never knew you.”
A lot of people claim Christianity. Not all of them are.
Don't be pinning anything on me. The verse reads "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing..." It sure sounds like St. Paul was addressing ALL women (verses 9-15).
But you find Paul to be in error in so many ways? Why quote him now? Maybe he is mistaken here also.
“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing...”
1 Cor. 3:15, “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
Same Greek words and construction. I think women got the best of this, maybe ‘cause they were deceived and men just flat sinned. Then again, I never had a baby. I sat in the club house reading Sports Illustrated when the boys were born.
You find my understanding of 1 Timothy 2 strange? Let's see what 1 Timothy 2:9-15 says
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
Wow, how many "bible-believeing" women follow that rule?
10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
Oh, yeah, that is obvious in all pious "bible-believing" women as well.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Whoaaa! Do you read this: in silence?
13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Nothing like a little "compliment" for a gullable Eve. St. Paul is saying, it's Eve's fault.
15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
They are to be faithful, obedient, submissive, modest, sober baby factories. That's their "role" in God's plan of salvation according to St. Paul.
And please don't tell me this applies only to women in "those days" and that cultural setting, because 1000 silverlings just got through telling everyone that the word of God is eternal and universal and that it applies to all the people all the time. :)
None of this strikes you as a little strange? I know, a head buried in the sand is all one needs to believe the sun doesn't shine.
HD: Can you see angels? Can you see demons?
People in the Bible claim they have; I don't. But that doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you if you saw the lake of fire but where it is. Can you stay focused on the subject matter and not stray?
You are using TODAY's dictionary to interpret Judaism 2,000 years ago. They went through many revisions in that time, much like the Orthodox I might add.
There you go again. What's with you and not being able to stay on the subject? Please, I gave you Jewish Encyclopedia (referenced it as well) explanation of what is known about the subject in Judaism. I was not using "todays dictionary!" I say peach and you say lemon.
And your interpretation is based on today's HD I surmise? The way you understand it in your cultural reality and your own experience, and that somehow makes it "more better" than Jewish Encyclopedia?
And what exactly revisions did the Orthodox undertake? Could you enumerate them?
Among who? The Pharisees who believed in angels, heaven, hell and everything else or the Sadducee that didn't believe in an eternal life?
The Sadducees were the priesthood in the Temple. They must have counted for something. The Pharisees got their ideas from Zoroastrianism. No wonder the Sadducees did not take them seriously. The Sadducees also only recognized the Torah as Scripture. All the rest was not considered the Hebrew Bible. Even to this day the Jews stand only when the Torah is read. The rest of the OT is profitable for reading but not equal to the Torah.
Then what is the meaning of Sodom and Gomorrah or the flood of Noah?
They all have their moral content. It is all about wickedness of man. They tell us that wickedness leads to destruction. We both know this is true, don't we?
I can proof Christ with the NT just as well. He is the exact same in the OT as He is in the NT.
Then why don't you? He didn't write the Psalms. David did. Christ taught the Apostles who wrote what He taught. Leave David be.
He is the exact same in the OT as He is in the NT\
No He is not, because it was not until His ministry on earth that we have full revelation of God to man. The OT Jews did not know God because He did not fully reveal Himself yet. All previous revelation was partial (as in incomplete). So why are you not proofing Christ in His full revelation to mankind, in His Gospels?
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.