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.
In a sense, our ignorance of the greater aspects of the universe allows for our freedom to choose ... in over-simplified form, if we knew the result of every act we may commit, it would direct our editing of what we would commit. When scriptures says that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess, will freedom to choose to do so or not be in effect?... And would the outcome of choosing wrongly be absolutely knowable for us to know prior to bowing and therefore we would choose not to do that which would/will cause our certain destruction/torment? Or will there be only those knees and tongues left which will choose to bow?
If "all that happens" is "by His will," then even those decisions which men freely make "happen by His will."
Dr. E to Kosta: Yours does
But 1000 implied that she only goes to churches that follow the scriptures. The Reformed have made it very clear on these forums that my Church doesn't...so what does it matter if my Church allows it or not?
The point is: Protestant assemblies don't follow the scripture either, when it comes to divorce...and Apostle James (2:10) reminds us that "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."
So, I suppose, 1000 has no church to go to.
No, the decisions are made by our will. His will is to allow us to exercise our free will. The decisions we made are ours and not His. When we place our will in the service of God, then our will ceases to be our will and we become slaves of righteousness, as St. Paul would say it.
Final Judgment is the term that brings visual images through which one can explain why every knee will bow and every tongue confess: those who believe will kneel and confess in faith, overwhelmed in the presence of God (as we Orthodox do at epiclesis); those who hate God will kneel from fear and confess in hopes of being spared the judgment.
FK to D-fendr: 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
It doesn't constitute "proof" because it's solipsism. Problem is, in and of itself, such "knowledge" of being "saved" is itself suspect and without proof internally. It could be God, a demon, or insanity.
The wickedness we are born with in our nature is removed when we receive our new nature. We are a new creation. However, a REMNANT of our old nature does remain, so we still sin from time to time. We can be justified with a remnant, but we cannot be justified if wickedness is still an actual part of our nature.
King David repented of his wickedness. He did not continue to covet other peoples' wives or arrange to kill their husbands. He gave up his wickedness in repentance. One is either wicked or just. You can't be both.
David was already a man of God when he committed these sins, but he did not "once and for all" give up wickedness after committing adultery and murder. Is that what you think? :) He sinned. We all sin. He sinned again after he committed these, just as he sinned before he committed these. Why would you think these were his only sins?
Plus, notice David did NOT use his so called "free will" to decide to repent! It took a very special face to face, God-inspired smack-down from Nathan to get that done. From the text, it appears that David would have just gone along like nothing happened without God's special intervention here. Repentance comes from God, not our inner goodness. :)
And you are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.
Likewise, there will always be some who insist that Euclidean geometry is representative of God’s Creation, i.e. space/time. And the mathematicians and physicists will continue to cringe.
kosta50: 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.
Einstein wasn’t even born until 1904.
Since you have no source for it, I shall dismiss your claim at 8447 that Einstein had postulated there is “a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall.”
That said, if Lurkers are interested in the relationship between Einstein’s relativity and Poncelet’s math vis-à-vis infinity (quantum theory and space/time) – they might want to check out Penrose’s Twistor Theory.
Repentance is not a satisfying of a debt. That is your legal idea of your relationship with God coming to the forefront again. Our relationship with God is familial, thus, there is not a "debt satisfaction" when we repent.
Regards
Why did God ordain it? Was He bound by some outside force, like the Bible? The incarnation did not have to happen. God CHOSE to save man in that manner.
Regards
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 Cusa’s 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 wouldn’t 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.
Well, on this we agree, and that was my initial point to Dr. Eckleburg. I also enjoyed the way he discussed minimum and maximum within eternity, as it helped to understand the concept a bit. I do agree that mathematics help us to understand ever so slightly the concept that is beyond the physical.
I do not see the point in continuing to argue about "eternity" and "time without end". It is more than theological, since we KNOW that time must have had a beginning. It is logically impossible to consider an infinite regression of time and ever reach today. Thus, time began at some point. Eternity does not have a beginning because there must be an uncaused cause to begin the process. Nor can there be a "starting point" when all points are indistinct. There is no maximum or minimum, no beginning or end point.
Naturally, then, since time is a creation, then God is not subject to it AND God is transcendent and beyond time, unless He chooses to enter into time. As such, as I have tried to explain, eternity is thus timelessness, without BEGINNING or end. It is one moment of changeless NOW. ALL points in time are like geometric points in infinity. They are indistinct and unity. Thus, if we consider this and apply it to time, we can say that all points in time are the same, changeless and immediately accessible to One who is transcendent.
Thanks for your discussions on the subject. No doubt, neither of us has really touched even the tip of the iceberg on the subject. My point was that the human wisdom has reached its pinnacle when we realize that we are ignorant about God.
Regards
From God's POV, we are His (main) instruments for the carrying out of His plan on earth. He has already ordained all the good we will ever do and taken steps to make sure it will happen.
From our POV, after salvation, we are free to do good in God's eyes. For example, next Saturday I might feel up for giving a couple hours toward one of our church's many community service projects. Let's say that two that sound OK to me are leaf raking for elderly church members, and picking up canned goods door to door for a food drive. I feel totally free to choose either and know that I'm doing God's will. Neither holds any more particular interest to me than the other, so whichever one I pick I know was God's choice for me in the first place. :) Of course, in real life, I don't think about the theology behind it when it happens, I just pick something and go do it.
But isn’t bearing fruit deeds? I thought that deeds were of no effect or importance under Reformed theology. I am not trying to belabour the point, but rather to understand it. I’d appreciate your further thoughts on this.
Yes, bearing fruits are deeds. Deeds are part of perseverance, and perseverance is required to enter Heaven. For us, though, we say that perseverance is a God-guaranteed process that will necessarily take place in all of the elect. We say God promises this to us in scripture. It is included in the "package" of salvation. So, it's not that deeds are not important, it's just that they are not in question. I have likened perseverance to physically running around the bases after hitting a home run. It's necessary for the run to count so it's important, however, it's not something anyone ever worries about in terms of WHETHER it happens. (I actually looked it up and from what I could find in the history of MLB, no one have ever failed to complete the trip.)
Perseverance a one-off event - the thief’s dying testimony? I’ve never heard it put that way. It’s hardly perseverance if the span of time is in seconds.
Why not? Don't we both say it is never too late to believe? :) I'm sure that if either of us had a dying friend or relative, whom we had strong reason to think was lost, we would both minister to that person in hopes of his salvation. On deathbeds around the world, I actually think the thief's story happens every day. Some of them might be fake, but I'll bet that a lot of them "count". :)
***Was He bound by some outside force, like the Bible?***
You concider the Bible, God’s word, as an OUTSIDE FORCE? Strange.
if protestants interpret this as forbidding Christ from performing another sacrifice or renacting the one he did then you’ve all decided to put Calvin over God in terms of authority...
As faithful as they may have been how do you know if they were good students and got it right?
As opposed to a person who had to learn the language of the apostles as a second language a thousand years latter and several nations away?
I think I’ll take my chances with the folks trained by the apostles...
You and me both Brother.
Don't misunderstand, I can see how terribly flawed their theology is, but for some reason there are members in those churches who have placed their Faith Alone in Jesus and that makes them our Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I think that in and of itself places them in opposition to their churches doctrines.
Why they stay where they are I can only theorize as to why.
Here is the fundamental difference that is irreconcilable. You will trust those who came later. I will trust the source they all should have measured everything by, SCRIPTURE.
Calvin, Luther, et al came latter. The church fathers were there.
Further the only reason protestants knew which books to traanslate (which the accomplished poorly) is because of these same church fathers. Without those church fathers protestants wouldn’t know that the Gospel of Judas was gnostic. They’d have to accept the Protevangelion of James as scripture.
The irreconcilable difference is trusting a 15th century man over the Holy Spirit.
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.