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.
"Pardon" works just fine. Most any way we phrase it, we're judged "not guilty" by way of Christ standing in the dock where we should be standing and taking on the punishment rightly due our sins.
Justification by Christ's actions alone.
Amen.
"...In exposing the idolatrous nature of the Mass, Knox stresses that all religious ceremonies and institutions must have clear biblical warrant, if they are to be admitted as valid expressions of worship. All worship invented by man is idolatry. Knox demonstrates that the Mass is a human invention; and, therefore, the Mass is idolatrous. The entire discussion turns upon Knox's defence of the scriptural law of worship..."
During Holy Mass, after the two-fold consecration, the host was changed into live Flesh and the wine was changed into live Blood, which coagulated into five globules, irregular and differing in shape and size...
You're looking for God in the wrong place.
We should "recall" Him constantly.
But we are not to repeatedly offer Him in sacrifice again and again since His one propitiation perfected His flock forever (Hebrews 10).
I will be praying for you at adoration tomorrow.
I propose it is better to conceive of reality – physical and spiritual – as God's will and unknowable in its fullness.
AMEN!
Then we can receive God's revelations to us for what they are – partial visions of His glory, never a full picture – we could not "handle it."
And another AMEN!
Again, there was a beginning of "all that there is." Moreover, there is a reason for it.
Yes, exactly and Scripturally true. There really was a beginning point and there really will be an end point which can be connected across the universe by our perceptions of a very real linear time-line, all determined according to the will and purpose of God from before time.
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." -- Hebrews 1:10-12"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Wow -- Just how does a communicant get one of these??? Are they special order only??? I'll bet they would be quite popular down at the Church of the Sacred Heart on Halloween. And then what about on Fridays -- is one of these heart hosts considered meat or fishy or what???
Of course He does!
What is the Holy Spirit if not God "within time?"
I know the RCC has trouble with the concept of "being reborn," but that is exactly what the words "regeneration" and "renewing" are referring to.
If you think there's a difference, what is it?
We find numerous "heathens" who do the will of the Lord in Scriptures!
Many men think they're obeying the law and thus they think they are being righteous. But God says if we break even one part of the law we have broken all of it and we remain condemned.
Your humanistic attitude shows so clearly in your misinterpretation of the verses.
Look at Romans 5. To whom is Paul speaking? To those who have been "justified by faith." Not every man, only believers.
"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." -- Romans 5:15
The grace of God abounds to "many." Not "all."
"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)" -- Romans 5:17
Again, those who "receive" grace and the "gift of righteousness" will reign with Christ. Not the entire world because the entire world does not "receive Christ."
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." -- Romans 5:18
The "free gift came upon all men," which means, in this context, that all men are without excuse for not recognizing the truth that Christ is God. The gift stares them in the face, but they rebuke it because they have not been given eyes to see what is truly in front of them.
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:19
Again, "many" will be made righteous.
Yes, ALL MEN ARE RECONCILED TO GOD!
If all men today are reconciled to God, then all men are acquitted of their sins and all men will end up in heaven and hell is empty.
Nowhere does the Bible say all men are reconciled to God, and thus forgiven of their sins.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
Where does the Sciptures say that Jesus died ONLY for the elect?
On just about every page. But John 17 is pretty clear...
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." -- John 17:9-10"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
And don't try to say these verses are only to the Apostles, because Christ corrects that error 10 verses later...
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:20
Cheer up, jo kus! You are not just another number to God. You are among a very specific group of sinners for whom Christ died. He has paid for your sins, every one of them. Rejoice.
That's what I keep telling my wife. :O)
Amen, FK!
What does that make of God? God is not just eternal—He is eternity, withough a beginning and without an end. Furthermore, God is outside of time.
If your definition is to be considered, then God, by necessity, has a beginning, and His very essence (of being without a cause) is made subject to His own creation, namely time.
Does the Holy Spirit move and work within time?
“Does the Holy Spirit move and work within time?”
Not if He’s a Baptist. We never start on time, get there on time, or end on time. We believe whole heartedly in moving when the Spirit moves.
Idolatry is worshiping false objects, objects other than God. The Divine Liturgy (Holy Mass) is entrely focused on worshiping the Triune God. Is the manner of worship now made idolatrous becase John Knox says it is? If so, then the muscial instruments in the Presbyterian churches are idolatrous innovations as well, for any kind of instrumental music was originally banned by the Reformers. And so are microphones and visual aides, because none fo these are mentioned in the Bible.
I think it would be good for the Protestants to look for logs in their own eyes before they busy themselves finiding thorns in other churches. For starters, they can show us where does the bible say that divorce is somehting Christians can exercise freely? Does it ever occur to the Protestants that perhaps they do many things that are not scripturally sound?
God intercedes within time but He is unaffected by it. He cannot be defined in terms of time or space. Your question is, no offense intended, pure sophistry.
I believe that many Anglicans and Lutherans would agree with that to this day.
It could not have been pride as pride is a sin and Adam, up to this point, was sinless
Pride was the cause of disobedience. His pride diminished God's commandment as he desired to be equal to God. His pride prevented him from repenting when it was time to repent.
Often times we don't even see our pride. In fact, we blame someone else. Just as Adam and Eve did.
Adam was guilty because Eve was given to Adam and man is the "head of the woman" as Apostle Paul says. He took the blame because it was on his watch.
Hopefully and God willing, someday during my retirement years, I will write a book on this and straighten everyone out on this subject
On that "humble" note, I will close with "good luck."
thks for allllllllllll your pings
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.