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.
I am not in heaven to begin with, so when was I "yanked out"? I have been PROMISED heaven, I have INHERITED heaven, but I have not attained it yet. Just as a child can lose their inheritance WHICH THEY HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED, I, as well, can lose my inheritance, despite receiving the first fruits of the Spirit.
Regards
Why did God HAVE to save man by dying? What "forced" God to this extreme? Again, it sounds like you believe that the Bible was a rule book that God had to follow. I know it is not you, but lately, I have been engaging other Protestants who appear to take the view that the Bible is MORE than a book. Someone quoted me John 1:1-2 to show that the Bible = God. Another person thought it was strange that I would say that the Bible is an "external thing". Now, I get the feeling that you are presenting the Bible as a "force" that makes God give up His Son to satisfy ... I don't know, the power of the Bible, I guess...
I hope you can correct me, I am having misgivings about the directions this conversation is going. Please re-assure me that you do not worship the Bible or think it is God or possesses some power over God.
Regards
That’s all very well, but where does the Bible say that Pharaoh, Herod or anyone else whose heart is hardened by God is condemned to hell by name?
The evidence does not exist for double predestination.
http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm says that:
Bibliolatry — Bible Worship
One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff.
Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today.
On page 2 of the May 14, 1996 issue of the Western Recorder, a local Kentucky Baptist periodical, is a report of comments made by Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee at a gathering of Baptists from across North America. Another denomination’s top executive asked him to state an “irreducible minimum for an evangelical theology.” In response, Chapman is reported as saying, “I would have to say the word of God is absolute truth and . . . Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Savior of the world.” This is a very “tell tale” comment. Chapman lists his commitment to inerrancy before his belief in Jesus Christ. If Chapman had been in the prison at Phillippi with Paul when the jailer cried, “What must I do to be saved?” would he have responded, “Affirm inerrancy, and believe in the Lord Jesus?”
It is frequently argued that we must hold on to inerrancy because if we permit anyone to question any part of the Bible, the whole thing is lost. We will have no solid foundation to return to for answers in matters of faith. It is argued that unless we have an indisputable source of truth to return to, Christianity will be reduced to a matter of opinion. But I always thought that Christians came to an understanding of the truth through much prayer, study, and by being informed of the Spirit. I didn’t know we could just look up the answers to all the hard questions. In fact there are numerous examples of Biblical passages which simply must be reinterpreted to apply to modern times (see examples in the section on Moral Legalism)
Of course the Bible is true. Of course it is the inspired word of God, but inerrancy is a red herring. Even if one grants inerrancy, it solves nothing. We still must rely on study and prayer, informed by the Spirit, to know the truth. Who’s interpretation of the inerrant Word should we accept. For example, there are multiple views of the position of women in the church. One interpreter, (well known author and lecturer Mardi Keyes), who believes in inerrancy, reads the gospels and sees Jesus willingness to discuss matters of theology with women (John 4:5-32), and his encouragement of women to sit and learn with the men (Luke 10:38-42), as elevating women to be equal to men. In the context of a first century middle eastern culture these and other seemingly small incidents certainly do represent a radical change in the role of women, given the view that women were mere chattel (property), which was the norm in Jesus day. Other interpreters, who also believe in inerrancy, see only the passage where Paul says women should be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12). Who’s interpretation should we believe?
If holding to the position of inerrancy doesn’t give us firm answers to hard questions, why do denominational leaders put such great importance on it. Only this: the inerrancy message is a thinly disguised version of “you may not disagree with me.” The issue is power, control, and the right to dictate who may do what and when; to tell other Christians what they may and may not believe. This is so foreign to the message of Christ, that it should shock all true Christians.
As the old hymn says, “the Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.” The Bible is our primary source for knowledge about Christ, but it is not our foundation.
Kosta is absolutely correct. There are many out there that put their Bible - and their interpretation of whichever portions of it tickle their fancy today - ahead of Jesus.
Besides, you don't know what scripture is. When this was written, "scripture" was a little different set of books than what you are reading today...
I read a post from Analog Reigns that sums up very well what I know (emphasis mine):
Whole copies of the New Testament have been found as far back as the 2nd Century (150 years after Christ) and practically all scholars now agree that the New Testament was written and completed in the 1st Century itself. The Apostolic Fathers in the 2nd Century quoted the New Testament frequently in their writing—so we know they were relying on written documents, not mere oral tradition (which so easily gets messed up, revised, added to, ignored, etc.) written mostly by the Apostles themselves. The Catholic Church (and it wasn’t all under the authority of Rome yet either...) “created” scripture in the same sense an art historian “creates” Rembrandts...HE DOESN’T!
Art historians RECOGNIZE the works of a Master, and the Church, recognized the work of the Apostles, inspired of their Master, the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, and God the Father.
Besides that, the Old Testament canon, some 4/5 of the Bible, was completed hundreds of years BEFORE the existence of the Church. So there’s no way you can claim “oral tradition” or the Bishop of Rome created the Old Testament whatsoever... The OT like the NT was RECOGNIZED in various counsels AFTER folks like the heretic Marcion tried to create their own cut-and-paste versions of the Bible. One of the main criteria for RECOGNIZING Holy Scripture was the fact that the vast majority of Churches out there was using and also recognized a certain set of books as apostolic and authentic.
The New Testament by the 4th Century was finally formally recognized, primarily because it was ALREADY USED—in no way can it be claimed that it was created at that time. Peter speaks of Paul’s writing in his first Epistle—Paul’s writing, and the 4 Gospels, as well as the other New Testament books WERE ALL IN USE BY NO LATER THAN AD 100 (about the time of the death of St. John).
To say oral tradition “created” the bible, and is therefore somehow superior to it (why what Rome tells you is oral tradition can therefore contradict scripture...) is counter to history, facts and common sense.
Oral tradition can be a good thing—as long as it is submissive and obedient to God’s Holy Word itself.
I believe "double predestination" is a misnomer. If by "double predestination" you mean does God take steps to purposely and actively send people to hell, then no; I would agree. There is no evidence of that in scripture.
But if God just simply sat back, did nothing, and let us had our way, we would all go to hell, right? Wouldn't you agree? I would hope you would as a Catholic. With no spark of God for man to co-operate with, where would man go? Man by our very nature is sentence to hell aready; every single one of us.
What people have done is completely did away with the concept of man going to hell. Instead, man is in some sort of limbo on earth where he gets to choose where he would like to go, either heaven or hell. Under this concept God shines His light to reveal Himself to varying degrees and people make their choice. Of course, if you lived in some foreign country and never heard the gospel, then God will treat you differently. And people are at a lost as to explain why someone who, understanding the issue, would choose to go to hell. Nevertheless, people simply don't believe in the concept of hell or how we can be so wicked that God would send us there.
The truth is that man is going to hell. God, in His grace and mercy, intervenes to save some of us. The question is why He doesn't save all of us?
I've taken to wearing a head covering at all times. It's a temperature regulating thing.
If a church told women they couldn't wear any head covering, your point would be relevant. I don't know any that do. Do you?
But WOULD he really be human without free will?
It sounds to me like you've have God creating illusions of humans with the illusion of free will.
Interestingly, Jesus Christ never had one good thing to say about "oral tradition." He only rebuked it, knowing that it can be so easily manipulated by the doctrines of men.
This looks like an interesting read, based on a Presbyterian's debate with an Roman Catholic regarding Scripture...
1. Writing to the Church at Rome Paul says: 'For everything written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope' (Rom 15:4). 2. To a chiefly Gentile church at Corinth he draws teaching from the Old Testament history affirming: 'These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come' (1 Cor 10:11). So the Old Testament was given by God with us in mind, as the quotations above show; how much more the New Testament! Indeed, the New Testament era is one characterised by further revelation in which the Word of God is being inscripturated. Thus Peter classes Paul's writings with 'the other Scriptures' (2 Pet 3:16). If we accept Augustine's dictum: 'The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed' we can see that the New completes the Old and gives us a completed canon of faith. At the same time we must not under-estimate the New Testament warnings of apostasy, and the signs of this already in the first century (cp. Revelation 2 and 3). This underscores the importance of the Word of God in written form and warns against making even early teaching or practices not warranted by Scripture normative for ourselves. The Word of God is the highest authority and by its very nature judges all other authorities. Accordingly, God's people are warned about adding to or subtracting from the word of God (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). The only way we could lawfully add to the Bible was if we had further words from God given for this purpose. As Rome cannot provide evident words from God going back to Christ and his apostles, she resorts to claiming a supposedly infallible authority over Scripture, so as to prevent its proper authority over the church...""Orthodox Protestants hold that it was God's intention that his Word be reduced to writing, doubtless because of a written form being more effective in preserving the truth. In regard to the Old Testament we see this intention in several ways but we will limit ourselves to the New Testament witness.
I don't see how you can claim the independence of free will without also claiming the credit for the decisions it produces. I note that you offer no opinion on the statement about virtue. I obviously posted the statement because I think anyone agreeing with it gives credit to man.
If perseverance is only for the elect, does that mean that the non elect do not persevere? Not even in their sin?
I am using perseverance as a theological term. It does not refer to sin for these purposes, but only to good. Therefore, the non elect do not persevere. In fact, they do no good at all in God's eyes.
Does that mean that there is a qualitative difference in the sin of the elect versus the non elect?
No, sin is sin. There is a quantitative difference, though.
I got some strong replies to my posting of the hyper Calvinist article by folks that really seemed to adhere to its definition. :)
I'll bet. :)
Actually He did and what He most focused on, besides their proprietary hold on oral tradition, was their intricate system of accretions to religion that forced the common people to come to the professionals for the keys to unlock the mystery of the extra scriptural additions rather than the common sense interpretation of the actual scriptures that they could understand themselves.
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
“I see my bad forcing the commoners to come to other magically transfigurified into Christ commoners is a much better system.”
No, it is relatively simple, see, God made man in His image so He could converse with Him without the middleman.
Amen, Harley. I agree in full. The most Jesus does for them is to hand the ball off at the 10 yard line. After that, each person is either able to run the rest of the way and cross the goal line or not. For us, Jesus always plays a quarterback-keeper. He runs straight up the middle and scores every time for the elect. As a team player, I always want the ball in the hands of our best player. :)
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.