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.
Yes, on this I think all sides can agree.
... Those who have teenagers will know EXACTLY what I am talking about!!!
I hear you brother, amen. :)
There seems to be a "school of thought" among some Protestants that the Scriptures dictate to God what must be done.
I am unfamiliar with this "school" and it makes no sense to me since God effectively wrote the scriptures.
[continuing:] Thus, the Incarnation MUST have happened. Rather than a free-will choice to show His immense love for mankind, the Incarnation is a sterile part of the "PLAN" that is executed grudgingly.
The Incarnation "must" have happened because God ordained it. I don't understand how any Protestant could think of using "grudgingly" here. God devised His plan exactly the way He wanted it. He would have to grumble against Himself. :)
No.
The fact is that Protestants allow divorce in clear contradiction of the scripture defined by Christ.
Tho Catholic & Protestant teachings are different in what happens after there's been a divorce, percentages of those divorcing are statistically very close. "They do it too" is a poor argument, because it discounts the reality that divorce is a sin for both.
Personally, I've become a different person than the one I was before my divorce. I would call it my turning point, the moment that I realized I would be better off if I stopped fighting against God.
We are Christians, last time I checked. Not Jews.
Right, but Jesus cited Moses in His teaching on the issue. The purpose of the Law of Moses is not to produce good moral behavior (it is, but more important is what goes on deeper within us), but to call all of us to understand our need for God's mercy and forgiveness.
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.
Catholic Church doesn't believe it has the power to grant divorce. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought EO churches grant divorces & allow remarriage after, but there's a limit on how many someone can have.
Yes, He did, and He also madeit very clear that it's wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought EO churches grant divorces & allow remarriage after, but there's a limit on how many someone can have
The EOC does not "grant" a divorce. The Church recognizes civil divorce in very few and special cases (prostitution a spouse, and other extreme cases of which I believe the number is seven). Permission is granted to remarry by the bishop exercising "economy" based on spiritual needs and benefits of individuals involved.
Technically, the number of "marriages" is three, but in pratice, two are the limit. There is no rubber stam involved in any of this, Each case is scrutinized indivdiually.
I can understand this to some extent, but a divorce is really difficult to justify scripturally.
Personally, I've become a different person than the one I was before my divorce
I understand, and you are not alone. In some many cases staying married is a horrible predicament. I believe the EOC concentrates on God's mercy in such cases, weighing what is spiritaully best for the individual.
It's easy to say you must reconcile by repenting. One may repent and wish never to repeat what was done, and still not love the spouse. So, then the rest of your "marriage" continues in a loveless, dead entrapment.
Mercy over judgment is the rule, and when a bishop consents to a civil divorce or second "marriage," it is always mercy, and not judgment, but I can tell you that Orthodox second marriage ceremony is like a funeral.
Yt we must not forget that strictly scripturally speaking, the Gospels leave very little room for justifying a divorce.
The Catholics also have annullment which is not divorce in the strictest sense because no marriage took place...that is a little difficult for even the EO to fully accept, when in reality some of these nonexistent marriages existed and produced children. Some sort of love must have existed at the time of such "marriages."
The EOC can also say that non-Orthodox and civil marriages are not "existent" and not count them.
Either way, divorce is probably one of the most difficult biblical issues to reconcile with the reality of life.
God is always free to exercise His will. All that happens happens by His will. It makes no sense that He would "ordain" Himself to do something He doesn't want. God is not predestined to do anything.
Does your church allow divorce?
LOL!!! Protestant churches are made up of "just spirits made perfect?" LOL!!!
The leaders of a church that worships someone besides Christ can make all the claims they want to, their claims mean nothing to those who do worship Jesus Christ
You mean like those churches made up of "just" and "perfect" souls who worship the bible and Paul? LOL!!!
Correction: God the Father, God the Son and GOD the Holy Spirit.
Care to reference this?
Oh, OK, that's very different. ......... Nevermind. :) However, that wouldn't work for us either because there are some false believers. There are those who will claim "Lord, Lord", etc. So, it can't constitute proof.
A common center is relative to a particular gravitational field. The moon, for instance, orbits around the common center which is in the earth.
Please provide your source for the claim that Einstein said there is a common center to the universe towards all objects will eventually fall.
That does not sound like something Einstein would have said because if there is a common center in the universe then the universe would rotate. And if the universe rotates, then it violates Machs Principle. Is the Universe Rotating?
It would have been quite a news item and cast doubt on General Relativity, IMHO. Moreover, if there exists a common center outside the universe, then the universe would be orbiting it.
For Lurkers interested in an introduction to Relativity with graphics:
Do Parallel Lines Meet At Infinity?
Asked by a student at St-Joseph Secondary School on October 5, 1997:
I am curious. Could this ever happen?
If you are talking about ordinary lines and ordinary geometry, then parallel lines do not meet. For example, the line x=1 and the line x=2 do not meet at any point, since the x coordinate of a point cannot be both 1 and 2 at the same time.
In this context, there is no such thing as "infinity" and parallel lines do not meet.
However, you can construct other forms of geometry, so-called non-Euclidean geometries. For example, you can take the usual points of the plane and attach to them an additional point called "infinity" and consider all lines to also include this additional point. In this context, there is a single "infinity" location where all lines meet. In a geometry like this, all lines intersect at infinity, in addition to any finite point where they might happen to meet.
Or, you could attach not just one additional point, but a whole collection of additional points, one for each direction. Then you can consider two parallel lines to meet at the extra point corresponding to their common direction, whereas two non-parellel lines do not intersect at infinity but intersect only at the usual finite intersection point. This is called projective geometry, and is described in more detail in the answer to another question.
In summary, then: in usual geometry, parallel lines do not meet. There is no such thing as infinity, and it is wrong to say that parallel lines meet at infinity.
However, you can construct other geometric systems, whose "points" include not only the points of familiar geometry (describable as coordinate pairs (x,y)), but also other objects. These other objects can be constructed in various ways, as described in the discussion of projective geometry. In these other geometric systems, parallel lines may meet at a "point at infinity". Whether this is one single point or different points for different classes of parallel lines, depends on the particular geometric system you are considering.
You may also be interested in our answers and explanations page, which contains a discussion of the question does infinity exist?
As an example:
In my opinion, his understanding of mathematics as a deeper revelation of the divine is far, far more important than his math theories.
From Plato through the likes of Gödel, Wigner, Barrow, Penrose, Tegmark and Vafa - mathematicians and physicists have noticed the mysteriousness of math and stood in awe of it though oftentimes unable to convince others who could not see what they were seeing. But Nicholas of Cusas understanding was much deeper than theirs because his was spiritual.
Nicholas of Cusa also saw what so many of us on this thread see and have commented on using different terms but the point is the same that man cannot perceive God through sensory perception (learned ignorance.) He probably wouldnt have used the metaphor I used earlier but the point is the same, i.e. that a maggot has a better chance of describing a human in terms sensible to a maggot than man has in describing God in terms sensible to a man.
And much like Einstein, Nicholas of Cusa perceived the universe is relative laying the groundwork for Keplers laws of planetary motion and suggesting that perfect circles do not exist in a physical sense. Noting again here that Einstein's Relativity leads to the conclusion that straight lines do not exist in a physical sense.
But Nicholas of Cusa like most everyone else until the 1960s (Einstein included) understood the universe to be steady state, physically infinite.
Nicholas of Cusa of course was long departed this world by then but Einstein wasnt. His reaction to the possibility (which was confirmed after his death) was to propose a cosmological constant. He later called that his worst mistake, it was kluged.
If Nicholas of Cusa were alive at the time, I imagine his reaction to the news that the universe is finite and expanding that there was a beginning of real space and real time would be much like that of Jastrows i.e. that it is the most theological statement ever to come out of science. There was a beginning of space/time, an uncaused cause of causation itself while the theologians were still reeling from the implications of Darwins theory here comes the most remarkable observation that God cannot be denied.
me: Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real number
Jo kus: I disagree. Infinity has no "quantity" because there is no distinction. Minimum and maximum are IDENTICAL! There is absolutely NO distinction in infinity. You have already admitted as such when you say "all points on an infinite line are the same". Infinity is not "one plus the last number"!
Also, I have not destroyed the definition of eternity, but rather challenged your definition of it. You are the one rejecting the definition of eternity as time without end.
Jo kus: I have already addressed this error. "time without end" is only projected in one direction. Eternity is without end in EITHER direction. Thus, there is no future or past in eternity. In "time without end", we realize that time has a starting point, but without end. That is TWO DIFFERENT things, A-G
Me: If it were no time or timelessness then it would be the ex nihilo - void, null, empty which preceded Gods Creation of all that there is both spiritual and physical
Jo kus: That is revelation. "Before" God created time, there was nothing. We believe God created from nothing.
And geometric physics (Vafa, Wesson, et al) has posited several theories of multiple temporal dimensions. If even one additional dimension of time exists, then time in our four dimensional perception (3 of space, 1 of time) is not a line but a plane. Past, present and future are all points on the plane. A change at a point, affects all points on the plane.
Sci-fi writers love these theories, of course.
Another Freeper extended the plane theory of time to volume. But since he, MHGinTN, is writing a book and this is one of its features, I will say no more.
As for me, I testify once again that eternity is relative to time that God created both space and time, both spiritual and physical whether time is a line, a plane, a volume or a moment only God knows. And what the character of time in the new heaven and new earth is (Revelation) also only God knows. To say that God exists in eternity or that eternity is a property of God - is to anthropomorphize Him into a small god our minds can comprehend.
Gods Name I AM has no time boundary or limitation at all. That is why everlasting to everlasting is sensible in speaking of God the Creator there is no time in which He is not. And He is, i.e. He is not time-bound.
Gods Names Alpha and Omega are time relative only in the sense of First Cause and Final Cause. All that there is whether spiritual or physical was created by and for Jesus Christ, Who is the Only begotten Son of God.
That God speaks to us space/time bound creatures at all is a blessing. God the Father has revealed Himself to us through Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, through Scriptures and through Creation, both spiritual and physical.
Nicholas of Cusa evidently saw a revelation of God in Creation, in the mathematics.
So do I. That is why I call the "unreasonable effectiveness of math" God's copyright notice on the Cosmos.
Jo kus: "the Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father THROUGH the Son". The Father is the principle of the Spirit. Kosta, anything to add? Otherwise, you have expressed the catholic/orthodox trinitarian belief.
Kosta50: Insofar as A-G's statement "The Spirit is from the Father by the Son" makes the Son a necessary co-element in Spirit's procession, which is not the Trinitarian belief.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: - John 15:26
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7
Yours does.
Praise God! You're catching on.
Spread the word.
That is a far cry form saying that parallel lines intersect at infinity. There is no reason why two equidistant lines maintaining equidistant separation can not remain perfectly parallel on a curved (warped) surface.
A definition of parallel is that something remains equividstant from another object over extended distance. Parallel lines cannot, by definition, intersect. It doesn't matter that no such entity exists in the real universe (which is only a conjecture!), only convergent lines will intersect.
Please provide your source for the claim that Einstein said there is a common center to the universe towards all objects will eventually fall.
That is the only way that he can make a claim that parallel lines intersect at infinity. They must have an infinitissimal angle of convergence in order to meet at infinity. If he didn't make that claim then he is wrong.
As you said: However, you can construct other forms of geometry, so-called non-Euclidean geometries
All man-made models. There is nothing absolute or "ordained" about modern cosmology. Simply new observer definitions and "angles." No matter what geometry you use, two parallel lines cannot have a common point in infinity and remain parallel.
In math, one can add variable to get the desired answer. If the model works, it is not necessarily "true" but working. Like the Ptolemaic navigation system. Ptolemy added epicycles to account for observed behavior. It describes the observed phenomenon, but it does not reflect what we know of plenary motion today empirically.
DR. E: Praise God! You're catching on.
Part of His will is that man be free to make his decisions.
DR. E: Praise God! You're catching on.
Part of His will is that man be free to make his decisions.
DR. E: Praise God! You're catching on.
Part of His will is that man be free to make his decisions.
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.