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.
When good things happen to our children, we tell them to say "Thank you, God, for your wonderful gift."
And when unhappy things happen to our children, we tell them to say "Thank you, God, because by this event I will learn how to depend on You more."
Calvinist parents probably pray with their children some variation of what's come to be called, the Serenity Prayer -- "God grant me the strength to change the things I can change by your grace; the patience to accept the things I cannot change by your grace; and the wisdom to know the difference by your grace."
There's a silly old MGM movie from the 1940's called, "My Brother Talks to Horses" with Butch Jenkins as a young, freckled-face boy and Peter Lawford as his older brother. One day at dinner, Jenkins nervously asks his mother, Spring Byington, a question about the future.
His mother replies, "Don't worry. Everything's happening the way it's supposed to happen."
Now granted, it wasn't Kubrick or Coppola. But for a child, that one line teaches a tremendous amount of trust and patience and acceptance and fortitude to do good and let God sort out the rest.
I remember one night when our young son couldn't sleep for worrying about his basketball game the next day, and nothing could settle his restless anxiety. I thought of that exact line from that movie. I reminded my son that everything is already known to God, even tomorrow's scoreboard, and that God wanted him well-rested and strong and clear-headed for the game ahead so he would play his very best. In a moment, my son was asleep. And the next day, he played his heart out.
When you see enough anecdotal evidence of something, you begin to recognize a trend. The more I believed in God's hand in my life, the more I saw it and was comforted and encouraged and strengthened by it.
And as God is so good, our children now see it, too.
Children need firm answers to life's thorny questions. So do adults. And the answers are the same. It's all happening exactly as it's supposed to happen, according to God's will, for God's glory and for the welfare of His children, who learn from the bad as well as the good.
Romans 8:28. That's what Christian parents should teach their children.
Does this mean:
a. You disagree with Kosta
b. You agree with Kosta but not the RCC catechism
c. You and Kosta both agree with the RCC catechism
d. You and Kosta both disagree with the RCC catechism
e. Other, please explain
Yes, we would never say "condescend TO", we would say "condescend in front of" or before. I think that is a big difference.
BTW, I actually started using the term "Apostolic" on the Erasmus thread. I explained it a couple of times, and I guess I just missed you on those ping lists. IIRC, it came about when I got a couple of soft complaints from some Orthodox posters, who didn't necessarily want to be lumped in with Roman Catholics on "everything", because there are some differences in views. I thought that was perfectly reasonable, so I started using the term "Apostolic" to mean "all those beliefs upon which Roman Catholics and Orthodox agree". It was never meant as a pejorative and is only my shorthand for "Roman Catholic/Orthodox".
[continuing] (note, God doesn't inspire men with knowledge of quantum physics. He tells us what He wants us to know at OUR level of knowledge).
It's true that He doesn't inspire here with Divine inerrancy, however, where do you think the knowledge comes from anyway?
Do you actually think God became man because the "PLAN" forced God to follow what is in Scriptures? Is the Bible the script that God must follow or does the Bible relate what God ended up doing? If you believe the former, than there may be some truth to the idea that you worship the Bible...
Not sure where this is coming from. This is not a chicken and egg situation. Clearly there was first a plan, and parts of it were later recorded in scriptures. Everything was already ordained before any words ever appeared on a page.
I agree with the Catholic Catechism. If I stray, then I appreciate any assistance in returning. Even non Catholic assistance. :)
Inasmuch as kosta agrees with the Catholic Catechism, I agree with him. I’m not ducking the full answer to the question, but I cannot speak for him.
A tender post. Thank you for sharing a personal story and the trip back in time when people had a better understanding of providence.
I'm satisfied with your response. I'll put my rifle down.
Truly I do not see anything more important than loving God - in deed, not in word only. As you have testified, raising your children to give God the glory for everything and to trust Him no matter what.
Praise God!!!
Calvinist parents tell their children what I would hope all parents tell their children -- that God loves them unconditionally and will be with them always and never leave them.
I agree with your hope. My initial question was whether that was taught since it assumes, according to your views: that the child is a member of the elect, which not every child is.
Perhaps the best practice for Calvinist is to assume all their children are. Maybe that is what you're saying in your reply.
Isn’t that inconsistent with the Reformed belief that only some get God’s unconditional love?
At what point do you inform them of the situation and status and inevitable outcome of the non elect? And, depending on the extent (Calvinist versus hyper Calvinist), when do you inform them that God hates (Reformed version of the Jacob and Esau story) those who will go to hell?
And by His will, we do.
You seem incredulous that anyone would presume their children are among God's family. Scripture tells parents to believe exactly that...
"He will bless them that fear the LORD, both small and great. The LORD shall increase you more and more, you and your children." -- Psalm 115:13-14
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." -- Acts 2:39
"And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me." -- Hebrews 2:13"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
See post 7,990.
At what point do you inform them of the situation and status and inevitable outcome of the non elect? And, depending on the extent (Calvinist versus hyper Calvinist), when do you inform them that God hates (Reformed version of the Jacob and Esau story) those who will go to hell?
There really is no such thing as a "hyper-Calvinst." It's a term of derision meant to tarnish the doctrines of grace.
I don't have to inform my children of the reprobates' unhappy circumstance which they bring upon themselves. Anyone can see that Godless people are unhappy people.
Does your Bible say God hated Esau? Does your Bible include Romans 8 & 9?
I wasn't aware that was part of TULIP, or at least your views. Sorry.
Is the reverse true for children born to the non-elect?
Is the reverse true for children born to the non-elect?
God saves whom He will. The parents of the thief on the cross could well have been unbelievers, but God chose to save him and take him to heaven with Him the very day he died.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm says that:
I wrote and posted this article because I am concerned about some subtle trends that seem to signal a rising tide of hyper-Calvinism, especially within the ranks of young Calvinists and the newly Reformed. I have seen these trends in numerous Reformed theological forums on the Internet, including mailing lists, Web sites, and Usenet forums.
Lest anyone wonder where my own convictions lie, I am a Calvinist. I am a five-point Calvinist, affirming without reservation the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. And when I speak of hyper-Calvinism, I am not using the term as a careless pejorative. I’m not an Arminian who labels all Calvinism “hyper.” When I employ the term, I am using it in its historical sense.
History teaches us that hyper-Calvinism is as much a threat to true Calvinism as Arminianism is. Virtually every revival of true Calvinism since the Puritan era has been hijacked, crippled, or ultimately killed by hyper-Calvinist influences. Modern Calvinists would do well to be on guard against the influence of these deadly trends.
yper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. To call it “hyper-Calvinism” is something of a misnomer. It is actually a rejection of historic Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism entails a denial of what is taught in both Scripture and the major Calvinistic creeds, substituting instead an imbalanced and unbiblical notion of divine sovereignty.
Hyper-Calvinism comes in several flavors, so it admits no simple, pithy definition. Here are a few definitions to consider. I’ll comment briefly on these and then propose a more comprehensive definition:
From a popular theological dictionary:
1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .
2. It is that school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, “Hyper-Calvinism,” New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]
Notice three very crucial points in that definition: First, it correctly points out that hyper-Calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will. Indeed, in all their discussion of “the will of God,” hyper-Calvinists routinely obscure any distinction between God’s will as reflected in His commands and His will as reflected in his eternal decrees. Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. (See John Piper, “Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All To Be Saved” in Thomas R. Schreiner, ed., The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, 1:107-131.)
Second, take note of the stress the above definition places on hyper-Calvinists’ “denial of the use of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the gospel.” This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.
Third, mark the fact that hyper-Calvinism “encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect.” Assurance tends to be elusive for people under the influence of hyper-Calvinist teaching. Therefore, hyper-Calvinism soon degenerates into a cold, lifeless dogma. Hyper-Calvinist churches and denominations tend to become either barren and inert, or militant and elitist (or all of the above).
I was unaware of the derision found at this website.
We’ve been through the Jacob and Esau saga on this thread. My footnotes explain about how the terms is less loved (ie less gifted) rather than hate. My Bible contains all of Scripture, not just the portion that made it past the Reformationist Scriptural Visigoths’ loving attention.
If God's will is that all be saved, and man has free will, and not all men are saved, then God's plan is not accomplished with man having free will. God's ways are not our ways. I also note that you are putting your money on His omniscience INSTEAD of His omnipotence. This of course erases the concept of God even having a plan. God just watches the events of human history, then snaps His fingers and says: "Yep, that's my plan"! :) This isn't God's plan at all, it is God simply signing off on whatever man decides for himself.
During the 19th century apparently there were some who thought we shouldn't preach to all the world. Those are not Calvinists of any sort. Which Calvinist on this forum do you think is not preaching loudly enough? 8~)
From a popular theological dictionary
Ahhh...yeah. Right.
Supralapsarianism is not hyper-Calvinism, as much as those who despise the doctrines of grace would have the world believe.
We’ve been through the Jacob and Esau saga on this thread. My footnotes explain about how the terms is less loved (ie less gifted) rather than hate.
So Esau was "less gifted" than Jacob and THAT'S why he was hated? LOL. First, even if that goofy interpretation were true, all gifts come from God, and therefore the absence of gifts is also an act of God's design.
But Paul is not talking about men's good works in Romans. He's talking about God's good work alone through the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of His children for which those whom have been so graced are eternally grateful.
If this is your conundrum, you have the same problem without free will:
If God's will is that all be saved.. and not all men are saved, then God's plan is not accomplished.
Your way out of course is: "Aha! God doesn't will that all men be saved!" changing in your mind "Our Father" to "Some of Our's Father."
But then that's your choice. You do have free will after all.
We agree God is omnipotent and omniscience. Free will stares you in the face each morning when you wake up.
How you build a TULIP from this is a major puzzlement to this court, counselor.
So I take it that you don’t agree with this individual.
I just thought that it would be interesting putting a rather strong commentary from the Spurgeon.org website by an individual that identified himself as a 5 point Calvinist on this thread and getting your reaction.
I guess I got it.
We believe that God gives everyone different gifts according to His direction. I am less gifted in, say, basketball than Michael Jordan. Does God therefore hate me and love him?
What caliber, and how heavy a load?
A .30-06 ought to do it, now don’t entice me take it out again, okay?
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.