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.
Maybe so, but I think that you and he do agree about free will and cooperation. :)
He didn't "ax" them, he moved them to an appendix. He actually did have the guidance of the early Church since they didn't officially affirm them either until after Luther did what he did. Luther treated them exactly the same as many early leaders on your side, like St. Jerome. There was nothing new in what Luther did. Besides, there must be a reason why the Deuterocanicals are DIFFERENT from the "Protocanonicals". :)
Ahh...it doesn't get much more New Age than that.
(And it's a very old error.)
They are the same. After having control of their respective inheritances, they both SOLD them for things that they wanted. Esau sold his for some yummy soup, and the prodigal son sold his for wine, women, and song. The point is that they both had legal control over their inheritances. We, as believers, do not. They are held for us in trust until the day we enter Heaven. We do not have clear title to sell them away. Could you sell your inheritance as a believer to enter Heaven to ME for say, a million dollars? Of course not. The Godly inheritance concerning salvation is NON-TRANSFERABLE. :)
Fair enough. I just didn't want to make a sweeping statement, since I honestly haven't read most of the work that would fall into these categories. Luther seemed to take the position of not throwing everything out as a matter of course, so I was just trying to sort of take that stance. I happen to know more about the Protoevangelium of James than any other work in this category (from the Erasmus thread) and I agree that I do not see much, if any, truth in it at all. :)
I think that sounds pretty fair, Joe. I would only add that there are also differences I think in the role of God here. But I know what you're saying and it is fair.
Yes, the father would set the standard.
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 think we would agree that Jesus paid the price because God knew that we couldn't. Whatever God's standard was, we couldn't meet it no matter what we did. That's why Pelagius was full of baloney. Anyway, would an unnecessary sacrifice really be an act of love? In your example above, if the father decided to take the punishment in the place of the child, would he have been showing love for the child if he had taken the broken glass and slashed his wrists with it? I think not. The punishment would not fit the crime, even if the punishment is being paid by another.
When Jesus speaks of dying for another, isn't it assumed that there is a good reason for it, such as saving their lives? I mean, if a grenade landed in a deserted campground and I threw myself on it, would that really be showing love for my friends who were all safely in a foxhole? I just don't think so. I believe that sacrifice must have reason behind it, or it cannot be from love.
I believe your theological opinion turns salvation into a legal issue. We think of salvation as an act of love.
I admit I see justification as a bit of a legal issue, but salvation itself is definitely an act of God's love for His children.
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.
No presumption alert. :) God's word is in the Bible just as it is in the mouths of those who faithfully teach orally. Sola Scriptura is not offended in the slightest at this. ...... I'm not sure why you say "ONLY" here since the power of God's word to transform is a very real and substantial power.
A bible does not have ANY other power except upon those who read it when indwelled by the Spirit.
Or touched by the Spirit, but yes, I agree with you.
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.
Well, this raises the same distinction I just mentioned above. Technically, the Spirit only indwells those who are already believers. But to your point, I agree that God can regenerate in any manner He sees fit. I do not doubt that some have been regenerated without ever having seen or known of a Bible. Given the distribution rates across time, that must be the case. But in the typical case I think we agree that the power of God's word actually DOES transform. It isn't the literacy that is primary, it is the "hearing" of God's word, which can take different forms.
Like anything in creation, it can be used against us. The devil quoted Scriptures against Jesus to try to tempt Him.
Actually, the devil MISQUOTED scriptures against Jesus. Big difference. For example:
Matt 4:6 : "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
Now, the actual scripture says:
Ps 91:11-12 : 11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; 12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
This little omission by the devil obviously makes all the difference in the world as to the meaning of the passage. This would not have been one of Jesus' "ways". Jesus clearly knew better.
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.
I would have no objection to this at all. :)
Then we are safe. :)
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.
The presumption is based on a premise of who a Christian is. Since my side has, I think, a much "tighter" definition, that would seem to take care of the cases you mention.
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.
And on this we wholly agree. :)
Life isn't a dream or an illusion, but the talk of "free" will is a wrong perception. There is a will but it is not free.
Because that's not how His Church was established. Some were appointed to be apostles, teachers, prophets, etc. Not all. He designated His Apostles and gave them the authority, and they designated their successors. He did not write a book for us and gave it out to everyone like the fish and the bread in a basket. He did not cause everyone to be able to read and understand. He did not say you will learn by reading, but by hearing the word of God.
There is no commission to make everyone a "pope."
The scripture was not completed until much later. The scripture was preached by word of mouth all along. And once it was written, not all of it was immediately recognized as scripture.
It was not a Jewish custom for anyone to read the scriputres. So, Christ, being a pious Jew, could not have taught otherwise.
Because not everything He taught is in the scriptures; even the scriptures tell us so.
Because people were illiterate and bibles were not cheap and affordable by most.
Many reasons, BD. All of which, biblical or historical, are ignored in defense of the so-called sola scriptura approach.
Thanks, Kolo. I usually like St. Symeon, and also Palamas. This passage has a very humble and thankful tone, which is great. I'm just not sure of what the level of effort (by man) is being depicted here. It seems like he is saying that all that is required of man is "a little faith and patience". Is that right? If so, then it would seem to me to be a minimalist approach to a fairly rare thing. But perhaps I'm nitpicking. :) Anyway, surely there is much for me to agree with in the passage and I'm glad you posted it.
No, HD, you are changing your story. If we are exactly who we are, where we are and what we are because God willed it, then it makes no difference if we are good or evil; in either case it's God's final word, and therefore His doing.
Monergism is not only a one way street; it's a dead-end street as well. You can't have God in control of everything and man being in control of (and repsonsible for) his sin. If we sin on our own, then God is not in control of everything. But, if our nature is sinfull, and our will is sinfull, then God is not in cotnrol of our nature or our will and there goes your soveeignty of God.
But your doctrine says that we are born sinful because of God. What we are is God's doing, as you say and are now trying to retract, because, after all, you believe that God trapped and tricked Adam to commit sin. Our sinful nature did not come about wihtout God's making sure it does. Or as some say triumphantly, "God was not surprised!"
All Protestants paint themselves into this corner with monergism. This is why St. Augustine finally realized that his doctrines were leading him to accuse God of evil, and that's when he stopped.
Perhaps the Protestants should do the same.
The calendar is a fluke brought on uncanioncially by a Freemason Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in 1921 (the Synod never approved it). It was accepted for practical and other reasons by most Orthodox Churches. The calendar is however not a theological issue. The Old Calendar is more accurate as regards Easter (in the new calendar, Easter can occur before Passover and that is incorrect; in the old one, it cannot).
Coptic Orthodox Church is not Orthodox and hasn't been part of the Orthodox Catholic Church since the 4th century (Council of Chalcedon). Their willingness to change their theology is making strides towards full communion. But they were in Christologic heresy all these centuries regardless of what they call themselves.
There is such a fluke as Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Just because someone calls it "orthodox" doesn't mean it is Orthodox. Just because the Mormons call themselves "christians" doesn't mean they are!
Well, the details have to pertinent to be menaingful. Obviously when tey are just heaped on without any reason, they are meaningless.
Then, Harley wrote: Oops, this is a heretical statement {jo kus writing: Man is judged based on HIS actions, not God's actions.) if I've ever seen one. Perhaps you should rephrase it. Pelagius had the same idea.
I am confused. Can you clarify?! Seems like when I write it, I am a Pelagian, but when you write it, that's orthodox.
Regards
What about when Christ abides in me? Can't I then "do good"? Am I still "bad"? Or am I being transformed?
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards
Actually, my best attempts here have been to define Calvinistic free will in terms ACCORDING to our experience. :) Perhaps I have been doing a lousy job. :)
I have been saying that of course Calvinism recognizes the real experience all humans have of free will. We say that the free will of the lost person is more limited, but that after the point of true belief, we have been set free and are then free to do good in God's eyes. At the same time we recognize God's sovereignty and His plan, and that God has ordained all things, etc.
So, free will itself is quite the sticky issue. I think both of our sides get crossed up in the basic definitions of what it is. Another Reformer might say "there is no free will" and in context I would know exactly what he or she meant and agree. Yet, that same person would probably agree with what I said above, in this context.
At this time, the ground zero difference for me is the degree to which free will is independent FROM God. Can my free will trump God's will for me? I think all Reformed would say "no", this cannot happen. My perception of the Apostolic view is that "yes", this happens all the time since it is axiomatic that God's will is that all men be saved, yet we know they are not.
You've been here that long and you STILL aren't getting it?
Christ died for ALL men, FK. EVERYONE. NO EXCEPTIONS. Even Roman Catholics. Even atheists. And yes, even Jean Calvin. Yet, EVERYONE who has died is not in heaven. Can I make that any more clear? IF Christ died for ALL men AND Christ's death was enough to open heaven to ALL men regardless of what these men did in their lives, then hell would be empty. Common sense dictates that man is then judged, correct? Oh, and the Bible says that, as well. OVER AND OVER AGAIN! WOW! This is not a "minimizing" of Christ on the cross.
And WHICH Catholic has said that Christ's death was "NECESSARY"? That would be YOU that says that on numerous occasions. We say it was "fitting", not necessary.
Regards
??? Why don't we have control over our inheritance and whether we lose it? You mean we cannot commit the sins mentioned in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that Paul says can cause us to LOSE our inheritance???
Regards
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.