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 I was a teenager, I logged a whole lotta miles in the parking lot of a Baptist church. Mom could never figure out how I could be putting so many miles on her car in short order. While it wasn't as easy to do backward donuts (in a rear wheel drive car) as doing the regular ones, it would help to unwind some of those miles. Never knew the church parking lot even had any white lines drawn on it.
Well, He is also Human. So that goes without saying.
God gives to the righteous and the unrighteous. In fact God's love is unconditional, impartial. God also gives in abundance, more than enough for the whole world (just like the basket of fish and bread that fed the multitude).
But God's love is not like our love, borne out of a need, desire, fear, emotions, desire to be safe. God has no such needs. He saves those who are righteous in His eyes and not because He "likes" them. It's not an emotion, or opinion: it's a fact: those who are righteous in His eyes are truly righteous even if we don't see them as such.
Likewise, the wicked are lost because they remain unrepentant and God see them as such, not because He doesn't "like" them.
So, do you feel "guilty" because you love your wife too? You want to please her out of guilt? You equate love with guilt?
No, I don't think you are following at all. I'll try it another way. I love God and want to please Him. So, when I sin I feel guilty because I have failed in doing that.
You could just as well sit back and enjoy the ride, do whatever you wish, and that would change nothing.
Absolutely not true, as our side has endlessly said. The difference is in who gets the credit for it. For you, the credit must go to man. We give all the credit to God. In any case perseverance must physically take place, so that prohibits sitting back and relaxing.
But what does sanctification accomplish?
It brings us ever closer to Christ during our time on earth.
He gave everyone a free ticket to paradise. If we don't end up there that's our fault. In other words "work out your salvation" (cf Phil 2:12) through Christ; He bought everyone a ticket.
I don't know how you can possibly say that. To get something of value all one has to do is turn in the ticket. This is the last analogy I would think of for your side. For you all, to get something of value you must also work and do good deeds and your sacraments, etc. There is nothing free about the ticket that you hold. It is worthless until you prove yourselves worthy of getting into the stadium. When I have a free ticket to a Cardinals game I don't have to prove anything.
Divorce, especially with a remarriage is a sin & I don't know that any Protestant denomination teaches otherwise. Most Protestant denominations don't teach that it is an unforgivable sin (tho some do).
The hardness of heart that preceeds divorce is the actual sin & a divorce "outs" the sin that has been going on in private. "Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." Did Moses create divorce or was divorce given to Moses by God? A marriage without God at its center is not as God intended & a society where divorce is on the rise is one where too few understand what God wants for us in our marriages, as we've begun to think that it is all about us.
I am no longer certain. :) We are told that first it must be filtered through the Gospels, and with any apparent discrepancies, the solution is to toss the OT passage. Next it must go through the lens of the Church for further modification to ensure that the none of the dogma of the Magisterium is offended. I'm not really sure what is left at the other end that would look like the text. :)
you: ALL points on an infinite line are without distinction. None are "closer" to any other point on this "line". Also, the definition of a parallel line in the "wikipedia" is stretched, because parallel lines do not intersect. If they did, they would not be parallel lines, just as a four sided object ceases to be a triangle.
Also, the definition of Point at Infinity does not come from Wikipedia but rather from Mathworld, i.e. the intersection of two parallel lines. The wikipedia link was to illustrate that it is also called “Omega Point” and “Ideal Point.”
Likewise, there is a difference between an infinite line and a projection or extension to infinity, positive or negative.
Our mortal sensory perception and reasoning has been so limited (I suspect by Adam's being banished to mortality in Genesis 3) - that we sense time as a line – moreover as a line in a particular direction, an arrow of time. We reason this from entropy, cars rust, people die, etc.
But relativity (special and general) shows that time is geometric. That is why no time passes for an object traveling at the speed of light, i.e. a null path – whereas the observers sense time passing.
That is why – while a week elapses in the vicinity of a black hole – 40 years might elapse on earth.
That is why – while you travel at the speed of one earth’s gravity (equivalence principle) for 25.3 years, 5x1010 years would elapse on earth.
That is also why 7 equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates is roughly equal to 15 billion years at our earthy space/time coordinates.
you: I disagree. Eternity is timeless. You are forgetting something called infinite regression. If there was an infinite time in the past, we would never arrive at today. God exists in eternity. Time is a unit of change, and God is changeless, thus, God does not exist WITHIN time, even "without end".
In the beginning, there was no space and no time. Not just zero dimensions of space and time - null, void.
In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
To suggest eternity past is to project our mortal sense of time passing onto God. It is an anthropomorphism per se.
Some people believe that time is an illusion. Some believe that time is a moment – neither a line nor a plane. Some people reject the insight from science back in the 1960’s that the universe is expanding and thus there was a beginning of real space and time, i.e. the big bang.
It is fascinating to observe the scientists scrambling since the 1960’s to obviate the necessity of God the Creator ex nihilo. They could justify being atheist as long as they could appeal to an infinite past, i.e. the plentitude argument – anything that can happen, did.
But none of the cosmologies – big bang, multi-world, multi-verse, ekpyrotic, cyclic, hesitating, imaginary time – none of them – can obviate God because every single one them rely on geometry (space/time) for physical causation.
But then people believe all kinds of things and look for justification every where they can find it (emphasis mine:)
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. – Matthew 11:16-19
Sure. Here, I would use "by" or "in" interchangeably. For example:
Luke 4:14 : Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside.
John 3:34 : For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
Acts 2:22 : "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
I wouldn't get too caught up in whether it was by the power of Christ VS. by the power of the Spirit VS. by the power of the Father. The point here was that the Spirit was clearly alive and active in (and leading) Christ when this all went down.
So is this "true" Christian guaranteed not to fall away, EVER? And how do you know you are "born again", since you do not consider Baptism any purpose besides some sort of ritual?
There may be none that you recognize, but they are surely there:
John 10:27-29
Phil 1:6
You sure hang you hat on these two verses, because they are quoted so often as your "proof". Unfortunately, they do not apply from our point of view, but God's. The latter one, esp., does not prove that this "work" refers to eternal salvation.
From the beginning we know that some who profess faith and say "Lord, Lord" will go to Heaven and some will not. To the latter, Jesus says "I NEVER knew you". Therefore, they could never have been true believers.
LOL! The only problem, again, is that the "Christian" who never was THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE!
What happens, then, when the "self-proclaimed elect" enters into the company of Christ in heaven and He says "I never knew you to begin with"? Thus, even in your theological scheme, salvation into heaven is not guaranteed, no matter how much you wish and wish and wish for it to be true.
Regards
Our "knowledge" of God is merely recognizing how much we don't know about God. Honestly, knowing God as He is, not as He is mediated to us by Jesus, is un-knowable, since He is transcendant and beyond our ability to know Him. Our minds cannot handle the concept of "infinity" or "eternity". Accepting this lack of knowledge is indeed human wisdom.
Regards
I meant that God is not subject to time. He certainly acts within time, since we believe in Divine Providence. Thus, placing the limits of time and space upon God is incorrect and anthropomorphic.
Regards
Find me one instance where we give credit to man in our theology or liturgy. That is just plain bogus, FK.
We don't give credit to man; we put expectations on man.
In any case perseverance must physically take place, so that prohibits sitting back and relaxing
That is inconsistent with your theology of double predestination. Either you persevere because God makes you persevere, or you fail because God makes you fail by design—and there is nothing you can do to change it. So, those who choose not to do anything because they are already "saved" can always say God leads me, I am who I am and what I am and where I am just as God made me. No guilt whatsoever. In fact, it promotes sinning, just as Luther taught.
It brings us ever closer to Christ during our time on earth
If you are "saved" then it's not an accomplishment but a foregone conclusion. One cold just as easily say that he will be sanctified on God's time whenever that happens and not really worry about being sanctified on earth.
I don't know how you can possibly say that. To get something of value all one has to do is turn in the ticket
The salvation came as a free gift in the sense that those who willingly come to Christ, walk with Christ, imitate Christ, and become Christ-like in their hearts will be saved. The ticket was freedom to do so. Before Christ, no matter how much one wanted, one couldn't. It was a foregone conclusion that all mankind would go to hell.
Christ restored the freedom given to Adam and Eve to choose between good and evil. That freedom was lost when they sinned. They became captives of death and all their generations with them. It was Christ who brought down the shackles of death, and made mankind free to choose once again.
Maybe one day you will realize this. I pray.
And Christ answered that, so that there is no confusion. Are we now placing God over Christ? The fact is that Protestants allow divorce in clear contradiction of the scripture defined by Christ. We are Christians, last time I checked. Not Jews. So, whenever someone spouts how the Catholics/Orthodox do not follow the scirpture byt invent their own rules, let's think of the divorce and which groups ignore the Gospels on that subject.
The thorns and logs issue.
It's like Lazarus. He was dead, not just asleep. But he was still a human being, yet 100% incapable of breathing without God bringing him to life again.
What I love about that parable is when Jesus is urged to hurry up and get to Lazarus before he dies. And Jesus purposely makes them wait until poor Lazarus is dead and molding -- to teach us a very important lesson...
Ah, now I am beginning to see why you are so mistaken in your theology. I see this pericope is often used by Calvinists to "prove" the idea of total depravity. Thus, when they read passages such as Eph 2:1-5, they refer back to the Lazarus story - "see, dead. Man cannot do anything."
There is a major problem with that interpretation. The story of Lazarus refers to PHYSICAL resurrection, PHYSICAL death. Martha says: "I know he will rise again in the resurrection of the last day" (John 11:24). The phrase "last day" is used ONLY when refering to the PHYSICAL resurrection of the body. Jesus confirms this understanding. Nothing Jesus says speaks of SPIRITUAL death or a SPIRITUAL rebirth.
Proper Bible interpretation stresses that we use appropriate pericopes to improve on our knowledge of the God's revelation. Calvinist misapropriation and misunderstanding has led to a heretical view - that man is totally depraved as a result of original sin. If we want to know what God teaches regarding spiritual death and rebirth, we should consider passages that speak of spiritual death and rebirth, not physical death! We KNOW and AGREE that they are two different things, so they shouldn't be lumped together.
Scripture uses the metaphor of spiritual death ESPECIALLY in the parable of the Prodigal Son. It speaks of a spiritual death and totally contradicts the view that the Reformers attempt to teach in their 'gospel'.
In the story of the Prodigal Son, the son leaves the house of the father with his share of the wealth. After squandering the wealth, the son returns by HIS OWN FREE WILL to the father. The father, in turn, greets the son with compassion and invites him back into his good graces. This parable takes on special significance because of the use of the word "dead". The father says "for this son was DEAD and is alive again; he was lost and is found" Luke 15:24. Again, Jesus repeats the father's words to the other son "because this brother of yours was DEAD and is alive again; he was lost and is found" Luke 15:32.
Because the son himself came to his senses and subsequently made his way home, Jesus' use of the metaphor "DEAD" to describe the father's understanding of the son's previous spiritual state shows a state NOT OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY, but rather, of cooperation by the son with the father's will. Thus, Calvinists improperly use Scriptures, trying to tie physical death to spiritual death, when Jesus Himself does not consider them as such.
The idea of total depravity is another word for "fate", a pagan idea that was discarded 1900 years ago by Christians. Unfortunately, it was "resurrected" on account of improper Scripture interpretation and has tickled the ears of people ever since its "rebirth".
Regards
You are saying that it is not possible for a pre-destined person to have free will. That is not the case.
You, for example, are destined to die. You are not going to change that.
Do you have free will?
If there is one exception, then it means that others probably exist.
Christ and His ministry in the Gospels is God's full revelation to man, FK. To recognize and accept this is to become a Christian. Everything is then seen through His eyes and words. The Jews did not receive full revelation until Christ, and all that was written was leading, foreshadowing His coming. As such it cannot be used on the save level.
But we have been through this. I could just as easily say to the snide remark about Orthodox not having any OT that I wonder how much Christianity is left in Protestants, since they put so much emphasis on the OT and Paul. Clearly such remarks are not made to further any discussion, which seems pointless anyway, but to insult.
It couldn't have been. Adam was sinless. Pride is a sin. What you (and others) are saying is that sin entered into man and then he was disobedient. What happened from scripture is that man was disobedient and sin entered the world.
On that "humble" note, I will close with "good luck."
No one said I'm perfect. ;O)
I can embrace God and put my hopes in Him, or die.
Transgression or sin is one and the same. You sin in your mind before you act.
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.