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 respectfully disagree, brother. Perhaps an example will help.
Let's say a child breaks a window in his house. Now, the Father, who loves the child, must have "justice" satisfied. True enough. But who's to say what will satisfy it? Each parent is different. Couldn't a father spank his kid, or ground him, or make him do chores, or just lecture him, or take away his ball, etc....
I don't see that God had to become a man and die to satisfy "justice". I believe that God did this out of love, not out of necessity or to satisfy "justice", since mercy is said to be greater in the Scriptures. Jesus said that to "die for another" is the greatest expression of love, so based on that, St. Aquinas said that it was "fitting" that Christ would make the ultimate sacrifice. However, no Catholic theologian that I am aware of said it was "necessary" in the formal sense.
I believe your theological opinion turns salvation into a legal issue. We think of salvation as an act of love.
Well, I would say that God's word has much more power than a tree sitting in a forest, even though they came from the same source. The Bible tells us that God's word has particular power:
Both the Bible and a tree were created by the Word of God. They both serve God and they both have a particular design and purpose. God's Word (Bible, I presume YOU mean, although the verse does not make that distinction - sola scripture presumption alert!) is powerful ONLY because a rational being reads or hears it and it TRANSFORMS a person. A bible does not have ANY other power except upon those who read it when indwelled by the Spirit. Now, cannot another part of creation do that as well? Can't a beautiful sunset or an event in our lives, brought about by God's Divine Providence, also bring about a transformation when God's Spirit dwells within us? I think some careful thought on that will help you understand my point - don't brush it off so quickly.
No doubt, the Bible is important, but I also think we shouldn't forget about the many different ways that God can reach out to us through creation. The Bible is only one example of that. St. Francis of Assisi was fully aware of that in his particular creation theology - thus, the "Brother Sun" or "Brother squirrel", realizing that ALL of creation is somehow linked because of its source, God Himself.
As an example, when Jesus was tempted in the desert, He SOLELY used the power of the word of God to defend.
Like anything in creation, it can be used against us. The devil quoted Scriptures against Jesus to try to tempt Him. The devil also uses creation to tempt us, as well. That is why so many ascetics (with Paul) stress renunciation of the material BEFORE we are able to effectively pray. Same with fasting.
Regards
Here’s a Prayer Vigil & I don’t see any of the men popping their head vestments off at any time.
Don't we walk by faith and not by sight? I wouldn't go strictly on what I see around me. And even if I did, there are many people who never hear the gospel and many who further reject the message. Why Bob becomes a Christian and not Joe can only be explained that God wanted Bob to become a Christian. Otherwise He would have done whatever He needed to to get Joe to accept Christ. I trust we both would agree that if God wanted Joe to be a Christian, Joe would be a Christian.
The Calvinist method - deducing experiential data from theology reminds me of errors long ago of deducing astonomical data from theology.
LOL!!! In my mind to deny the "chosen people" is essentially denying the entire Bible which is written about the "chosen people". I personally think that a big "DUH!".
As long as you don't equate your "knowledge of being elect" with "God's knowledge of your being elect", then we are closer. What we disagree with is the presumption that God has sent a Christian the "Book of Life" to glance through so they could find their name written on it in indelible ink. That will not do. There are just too many cases in Scriptures and real life that negate that presumption.
As long as we remain in Christ, we are guaranteed of entering the Kingdom. God is righteous and will not pull the rug out from us.
Regards
Hmm, I think you said something more profound then you may have realized...
Regards
It’s possible. Even a baboon typing on a keyboard is bound to write something profound given enough time. :O)
Of course. Man will be judged based upon his works.
Now, let me ask you this question, do you believe that your good works come from God or from you? Hint, see the scripture...I'll even provide them for you...
Oops, this is a heretical statement if I've ever seen one. Perhaps you should rephrase it. Pelagius had the same idea.
I was speaking quite literally about our sense data. If we cannot trust our senses - and even further our experience of making choices and decisions - then all argument must cease. It's been reduced to: It could all be a dream, all an illusion.
Of course existence COULD all be a dream. But if this is taken as a truth statement that we cannot trust our basic experience of reality, then actual productive discussion must stop. We can no longer trust the instruments of our minds or senses and our 'delusions' of reality are equally invalid.
Who is teaching that? FK, find where the Orthodox and Catholic Churches teach that we get to heaven independently of God. Please do, or retract this nonsense.
All y'all are teaching that. :) To be clear, I know that none of you believe in full Pelagianism. But you DO believe in semi-Pelagianism. You all believe that God's grace enables the believer, but you also believe that man's free will is unfettered by God. God will not impose. God "suggests", He "nudges", but ultimately it is solely up to the man to make the decision for himself to go to Heaven or not. Choose to believe and perform and you're in. Don't and you're out. God's will does not decide, man's will does. Therefore, that final decision is independent from God. That's all I'm saying. Is any of the above incorrect?
I fully agree with Harley's answer. Spiritually speaking, God good, man bad. God DOES good and man DOES bad. As Harley said, there is no corner here.
Here’s some Orthodoxy for you, FK:
“How good it is thankfully to proclaim the blessings of God, who loves men!… By grace I have received grace, by doing well I have received [His] kindness, by fire I have been requited with fire, by flame with flame. As I ascended I was given other ascents, at the end of the ascent I was given light, and by the light an even clearer light. In the midst thereof a sun shone brightly and from it a ray shone forth that filled all things. The object of my thought remained beyond understanding, and in this state I remained while I wept most sweetly and marveled at the ineffable. The divine mind conversed with my own mind and taught me, saying, “Do you realize what My power has done to you out of love for men because of but a little faith and patience that strengthens your love? Behold, though you are subject to death, you have become immortal, and though you are ruled by corruption you find yourself above it. You live in the world and yet you are with Me; you are clothed with a body and yet you are not weighed down by any of the pleasures of the body. You are puny in appearance, yet you see intellectually. It is in very deed I who have brought you into being out of nothing.” +Symeon the New Theologian, The Discourses
They are not "denominations." The Orthodox Church is a communion of churches, just as it was form the beginning. They all believe, teach and practice the same faith -- in their own culture and language. Just because the Bible exists in multitude of languages doesn't mean there are multitutde of bibles. There is only one Bible.
Protestant denominations differ in theology and practice, as well as organization and leaderhsip; some allow women clergy, others don't. It's apples and oranges. I can walk into any Orthodox Church and know exactly which part of the Divine Liturgy is being sung and what is going on, regadles sof which language is used. I know that for a fact because in my six years in Japan I attended the services in the "Nicholas do" Orthodox Chuch of Japan Catedral in Tokyo. Everything in that church was the same as in any other Orthodox church.
Where is the rule that says we cannot be BOTH rational and directed? Do our children not make rational decisions while under our full control? Of course they do. The experience is the same with us. And does the Bible say anywhere that we would be less than human without the Apostolic view of free will?
The Gospel assumes free will. Without free will, it becomes meaningless.
I'm sorry, FK, but it's just flat ridiculous to say we do not have free will. You're exercising yours right at this moment.
The only way to make Calvinistic theology cogent is to define free will as something other than what everyone experiences as free will: making decisions in their lives, hopefully better ones growing in wisdom.
God inspired the writers to do THE BEST THAT THEY COULD??? :) Oh my goodness. So God's standard for His all-time written revelation to His beloved children is: "the best that man can do". LOL! No wonder the Church's interpretation of the Bible bears little resemblance to the text. The text was simply man's best effort, riddled with errors. The men of the Church had to ride in on white horses and say what God REALLY meant. I'm almost speechless, Mark. :) Considering many, many comments on this thread I don't think I have ever seen the Bible itself take such a beating ...... BY CHRISTIANS! :)
Martin Luther, inspired Scriptural Vandal, chopped some out and was prepared to eliminate most of it, resurrecting the Marcionist heresies which still prevail to this day amongst many of the Protestants.
Luther was not inspired. No one on my side thinks that. His "chopping" consisted of moving the Apocrypha to an appendix. In response to that, the Church finally said that maybe they should get around to officially recognizing the Apocrypha as scripture, which they had refused to do for about 1100 years. And of course Luther was not the first by any means to disavow the Apocrypha as inspired, St. Jerome for example. There were others.
Christ had to go through death on the Cross and Resurrection, certainly. Why do you guys think that we minimize it? Remember that we’re the ones with the Crucifixes. We are reminded of it all the time.
I think Apostolics minimize Christ on the cross because not a single person ever entered Heaven just because Jesus gave His life for us. It certainly helped and made it possible, but it accomplished nothing in totality regarding completed salvation. For you guys, His death was necessary but not sufficient to enter Heaven.
The problem I have with the Crucifix is that it strongly reinforces the image we have of you all re-sacrificing Jesus over and over again during the Eucharist. Our cross is empty because He is risen.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. INDWELLING Holy Spirit is a seal and a mark that one is of the elect. Holy Spirit certainly touches unregenerate man in ORDER to regenerate him. However, He does not indwell a non-believer.
OK, thanks. I take it then that it would be improper for me to just wander in some day and enter a confessional. That's fine with me. I would only always want to show respect in the next circumstance I find myself in a Catholic Church. I was very glad to learn the proper response for me if I ever found myself in a communion line. As a kid I actually did take communion improperly in a Catholic setting, having no idea what was going on at the time. :)
All Calvin and the other Reformers said here is that after falling down, God does not leave His child lying in the dirt to die. God always picks His children up so that they WILL finish the journey. Does that sound so heretical? :)
The unelect can do no good in God’s eyes?
Correct. The unelect can do plenty that you and I would normally call "good", but to God it is as filthy rags. There is a timing element involved also. While the elect are technically elect for all time, they do not function as the elect, for these purposes, until the point of belief. Therefore, before I became a believer all of my deeds were worthless in God's eyes also, even though I am (I claim to be) of the elect. The non believer, elect or not, is incapable of doing anything in service to God, so it cannot be considered "good" in His eyes.
Does that mean that if one practices the Beatitudes that one is automatically one of the elect?
No, deeds do not make a person one of the elect. God predestinating makes a person one of the elect. The elect become aware they are of the elect when Holy Spirit regenerates them and they become believers.
What is the quantitative difference between elect sin and non elect sin?
Statistically, the elect should sin less often after regeneration. I presume that by the numbers a full Adamic nature sins more often than a Godly nature with a remnant.
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.