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.
Purely for food, I assure you..
:)
Dr. E.: "What's really astounding is when Christians don't understand and appreciate and thank God for the fact that they have been chosen by God from all eternity, and that they didn't do the choosing."
Yes, it is truly astounding. And of course, the trick they use to get out of Harley's passage is selective application. Here it is:
John 15:16-17 : 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17 This is my command: Love each other.
Since verse 16 threatens the power of the men of the Magisterium, since the Magisterium is the dispenser of salvation, it must be declared to refer to only the Apostles (and by extension their Apostolic successors) but no other Christians. However, of course, verse 17 is relatively harmless to these men in terms of their power, so I'm sure they would allow THAT one to apply to us all.
I do think that in SOME Biblical cases selective application is actually intended, but the frequency with which they wholesale switch in mid-thought is, as you said, astounding. It's that dreaded lens again. :)
But of course in actual Apostolic practice this is WHOLLY untrue. While I am sure that there are times when you approach God through Jesus directly, there are also a great many times that you approach Him through many different ways. For example, Roman Catholic clergy, Mary, any one of about 5,500 other saints, departed relatives, and any other departed you think might be able to put in a good word for you. All of these methods are valid in your Church to approach God.
One of my long standing criticisms of Apostolic theology is that the very intimacy you mention above is not possible because of all these middle men and women that you happily go through to approach God. Either the intimacy is controlled and managed by a live third party man here on earth, or a message is left on an answering machine in Heaven. Is that intimacy? :) Not in my book.
Nonsense. Eve was deceived. Adam wasn't. That is why sin came into the world through ONE MAN. Sin did not come into the world through Eve. Like Eve, Christians can also be deceived and Paul warns us about be deceived (Rom 7:11, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Cor 15:33, 2 Cor 11:3, etc.). However, sin cannot come into the world. It came in through Adam. It certainly wasn't Eve's fault.
I see no rules at all. There are not now, Jesus' commandments + stuff about women's apparel.
The apostle states a preference. He prefers inward beauty to outward. In other words, it's not "what's up front" that counts. It's what's inside.
Incidentally, he does not say here that women should not have braided hair. In the same way as I might say to a football player, "I want courage & commitment in the heart, and not immaculate uniforms, snazzy gloves, and polished helmets..."
I did NOT just say that immaculate uniforms are forbidden.
All of the other stuff that you propose being for “women” is actually for “wives.” In that perspective, he addresses the first couple, Adam & Eve. Obviously, he is discussing husbands and wives.
He is telling wives to recognize the protection that the husbands are to provide spiritually in the same way they rely on the husband’s protection physically.
I think having a baby is not as worst as knowing that every baby you bring into the world is doomed to hell unless God steps in and saves that baby. But then the Orthodox's position is that there is no original sin, every baby is on their way to heaven. It's all a matter of perspective.
Oh. I think we have different ideas of what heaven is...
Regards
I Agree with you on this. Adam was responsible to protect the garden and everything in it.That included “EVE”
Excerpts from New Advent
I. MEANING
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine’s statement: “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin” (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.
II. PRINCIPAL ADVERSARIES
Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the “Excerpta Theodori”, by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, “A Dictionary of Christian Biography”, IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: “Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race” (Mercator, “Liber Subnotationem”, preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, “Enchiridion”, no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Romans 5:12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin.
After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death — this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases — but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)].
The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.
III. ORIGINAL SIN IN SCRIPTURE
The classical text is Romans 5:12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin. The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption. This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses.
We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:
(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death — “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men”. Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: “But by the envy of the devil death came into the world”. Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: “For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead”. Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, “for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners” (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam’s bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, “Contra julian.”, VI, xxiv, 75).
On this account, several recent Protestants have thus modified the Pelagian explanation: “Even without being aware of it all men imitate Adam inasmuch as they merit death as the punishment of their own sins just as Adam merited it as the punishment for his sin.” This is going farther and farther from the text of St. Paul. Adam would be no more than the term of a comparison, he would no longer have any influence or causality as regards original sin or death. Moreover, the Apostle did not affirm that all men, in imitation of Adam, are mortal on account of their actual sins; since children who die before coming to the use of reason have never committed such sins; but he expressly affirms the contrary in the fourteenth verse: “But death reigned”, not only over those who imitated Adam, but “even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam.” Adam’s sin, therefore, is the sole cause of death for the entire human race. Moreover, we can discern no natural connexion between any sin and death. In order that a determined sin entail death there is need of a positive law, but before the Law of Moses there was no positive law of God appointing death as a punishment except the law given to Adam (Genesis 2:17). It is, therefore, his disobedience only that could have merited and brought it into the world (Romans 5:13, 14).
These Protestant writers lay much stress on the last words of the twelfth verse. We know that several of the Latin Fathers understood the words “in whom all have sinned”, to mean, all have sinned in Adam. This interpretation would be an extra proof of the thesis of original sin, but it is not necessary. Modern exegesis, as well as the Greek Fathers, prefer to translate “and so death passed upon all men because all have sinned”. We accept this second translation which shows us death as an effect of sin. But of what sin? “The personal sins of each one”, answer our adversaries, “this is the natural sense of the words ‘all have sinned.’” It would be the natural sense if the context was not absolutely opposed to it. The words “all have sinned” of the twelfth verse, which are obscure on account of their brevity, are thus developed in the nineteenth verse: “for as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” There is no question here of personal sins, differing in species and number, committed by each one during his life, but of one first sin which was enough to transmit equally to all men a state of sin and the title of sinners. Similarly in the twelfth verse the words “all have sinned” must mean, “all have participated in the sin of Adam”, “all have contracted its stain”. This interpretation too removes the seeming contradiction between the twelfth verse, “all have sinned”, and the fourteenth, “who have not sinned”, for in the former there is question of original sin, in the latter of personal sin. Those who say that in both cases there is question of personal sin are unable to reconcile these two verses.
And because the majority of the Apostles are never mentioned outside the Gospels, apparently they did NOTHING after Jesus rose from the dead. We have evidence that Peter was in Rome outside of the Scriptures. The majority of scholars also see "Babylon" as a code word for Rome, which would match what John writes in Revelation.
Really, yours is not a very good argument. The Bible doesn't say much about Hadrian's Wall, either, and there it stands...
Regards
FK responded: But what we are talking about is salvation and entry into Heaven. It is the difference between necessary AND sufficient, and necessary BUT insufficient.
What difference does that make - whatever that means? The concept of repenting for something you haven't done yet is ridiculous. How can you be sorry for something you haven't done yet? There can be no sorrow where there was no action done yet.
Also, salvation and entrance into heaven are two different things, so I've been told by Protestants.
Regards
I did not say that. You are jumping from one conclusion to another. The NT gives more than one example of what saves us, and not all of them are necessarily based on existing faith, such as being predestined (before you even existed!), or being meek or merciful. Likewise, some conditions predestine you to hell even if you believe, such as being rich (I am sure lawyers would have a field day with this one..."dependes what you mean by rich..."). There is no contradiction.
“The word Christian means an anointed one.”
No. Mashiach (Messiah) means anointed. Christian means a follower of Christ. Why is it that the self-named members of the one flock stray so much?
A consensus is not necessarily unanimous...
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.
Again, not necessarily. God gives EVERYONE graces. Just our existence alone is grace. Those elect are those called, not those going to heaven.
"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
As usual, you take the words written to a community and apply them individually to yourself when there is no justification for that. Read the context of Phil 1. This was my point regarding taking Paul's writing to a community and transfering it to yourself.
"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; 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: Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; Phil 1:1-7
Paul is writing to the community at Philippi, not to Dr. Eckleburg or any particular Christian. His "God will complete His work within you" refers to the COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE, not the individual Christian. Paul is NOT guaranteeing that EVERY Christian at Philippi will be granted eternal life in heaven. This is obvious when elsewhere, Paul says that SOME INDIVIDUALS will fall away. It is the COMMUNITY that Paul speaks to here. The plural "YOU". Thus, it is mistaken and presumptive bible iegesis to think that Paul is guaranteeing that God will irrevocably bring ALL Christians to heaven.
Just as when Jesus speaks of the flock and Paul speaks of the church community, they are referring to the community as a whole. Those who remain within her will be saved for heaven. Those who fall away will not. Thus, the Church's "no salvation outside of the Church". God doesn't promise that mere initiation will bring people to heaven. Only those who persevere in the end will be saved for the Kingdom.
Regards
Luke 15:
17
Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.
18
I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
19
I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’
20
So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.
21
His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’
Sounds like true repentence to me. Sounds like a theme repeated throughout the Gospels that one must repents. Sounds pretty Christian to me, at least the Christianity of the Apostles.
I think that I’ve showed that we do get it. All of it. We don’t make things up as we go along; we have also not replaced the Gospels with misunderstandings of Saint Paul as erroneously concocted by Saint Calvin.
Which Scriptures have they known from their childhood?
To the contrary.
We consider Paul to be the second greatest of all the Apostles. We dismiss Calvin and call his followers Gnostics and Marcionists.
It is certainly indicative of the shakiness of your foundation when misinterpretation of Paul is all that you base your theology on.
I understand John played an important role in setting up churches. But it doesn't say they were under his control nor does it say that John was submissive to a Pope. Don't you think that would have been a little impertinent of someone to assume command of John or to have John's council overruled by a group of cardinals?
This only serves to illustrate that there wasn't a controlling Pope in the early church.
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.