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 don't see any contradictions. The empty cross recognizes the finished work, and the finished victory. A crucifix connotes that Jesus hasn't finished anything yet.
I don’t believe that a Protestant could have even come close to producing the movie The Passion of The Christ because the mindset is so different.
That must be true since almost no Protestants went to see it. :)
You got it. :)
No double talk. A person who is born again IN FACT, CANNOT fall away permanently. Aside from ourselves, none of us can know who is born again in fact. I have been perfectly consistent with this. The "certitude of salvation" is exclusive to the individual.
And how exactly are you able to ascertain JESUS' knowledge of whether He knew YOU? Those Christians in Mat 7 THOUGHT they knew Jesus, as well. But JESUS never knew THEM. In other words, they deceived THEMSELVES. Thus, how does a 'Christian' know he is not deceiving himself?
I recognize Christ's voice in the scriptures and I follow it.
You are trying to rationalize something that was a decision of the Father. The fact that it happened is enough for us. Whether it was necessary or not depends on to "what" you think the Father was bound by. If you say He "bound" Himself, then you say He didn't have a free will decision - that is not surprising - considering that fate is so important in your scheme of things.
What external force? I'm saying it was God's INTERNAL requirement of justice (His nature) that set the standard here.
Does His nature REQUIRE such an extravagant show of love? Or was it a free will decision? Now, it appear that you are saying God does not have a free will, either! His "nature" made Him do it?
Regards
Double talk. You quote me Mat 7. Doesn't it say that JESUS said He never knew the Christian? The Christian THOUGHT he knew Christ but was wrong. So what makes you any less deceived than these charecters?
The "certitude of salvation" is exclusive to the individual.
The certitude of salvation is exclusive to the community! Only those WITHIN it will be saved. The trick is whether you are in or not!
I recognize Christ's voice in the scriptures and I follow it.
That's what the people of Matthew 7 thought. However, God is the one who determines whether HE "knew" YOU.
Regards
No, since God is not responsible for everything. We are responsible for our own sin. If you want to say that God is responsible for all worthless things because God created everything, then that is one point of view. I don't happen to look at it that way.
Every one of you. Not all believed, but the ones who did repented first and then received the Holy Spirit. Not vice versa. Interesting. I presume that Peter hadn’t consulted with the Reformers first. :)
I don't understand, you are reciting the correct order. First, belief, then indwelling.
Funny, I don’t see statistical analysis or the science of numbers pertaining to sin of the elect versus non elect in my Bible. You wouldn’t be able to point me in the right direction would you?
No, I'm not aware of any study on the matter. I simply made a hypothesis that the changed nature will sin less than the Adamic nature. Does that sound wild and out in left field somewhere to you? :)
I don’t have a position that contradicts Jesus. Paul’s Marcionists, on the other hand, well, they may wish to reconsider.
In the context of these verses, Jesus is praying specifically for those who are heading out for the Great Mission. It does not say anywhere that those who are not specifically included in these prayers are automatically sent to hell.
We stress that God has put out His hand to all first. If it was not for God, we wouldn’t be able to attain Heaven at all. Not semi. Just God.
And if God did not open the Via, then we’d all be headed to hell.
You do have the traditions of men, and a hierarchy. You most emphatically do not have the Magisterium, though.
And your possessiveness of the Bible does not address its origins. You have Bibles out there that are obviously theologically wrong. You have not addressed how you identify Biblical correctness.
If God wills all, and man sins, then God is responsible for man’s sins. You cannot have it both ways.
Ah, but you may not be in concert with the Calvinists that have been populating this thread: the Holy Spirit comes upon men and then they believe and then the indwelling occurred. Come on, folks, what is it? Is the Holy Spirit first, or is the Belief first and the Holy Spirit second? I’m waiting on pins and needles.
If you make a quantititative statement about sin, I’d really like it if you have Scripture to back it upl
In all honesty, they are not. But in printed form I only have the NIV, RSV, and NKJV.
I use the online NAB, pedestrian as it is.
But I have it all. All the books. All the verses. All the Word of God. Does it not worry you that the Bibles that you have are abridged? Does it not worry you that that they may have been abridged for a reason, whether political, or otherwise?
Both stories mean something, they just don't relate to the Apostolic view of salvation. The story of Esau concerned the sovereignty of God and the fulfillment (and creation) of prophecy. The prodigal son does include ideas of redemption, but notice there is no Jesus character in the parable at all. How could it be about salvation as you see it?
“Where does Paul say that they are immune from returning to that style of life?”
In his argument on a previous thread, stfassisi used this quote as the basis for Mary’s eternal moral perfection.
“Luke 1:28 has the perfect passive participle, kecharitomene. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes the “continuance of a completed action”;(Blass and DeBrunner, 175.) “completed action with permanent result is denoted by the perfect stem.”(Smyth, sec. 1852:b.)”
When Paul says “For by grace are ye saved through faith...” Eph. 2:8, the verb “saved” is the same verb form, the perfect passive participle, so salvation is a “continuance of a completed action”, a “completed action with permanent result as denoted by the perfect stem.” Therefore, the saved can’t return to their previous style of life.
Praise God!!!
By "ordain" I mean "that which is set into God's plan". Many times, our sin DOES fit into God's plan so it is ordained. For example, God did not REACT to Pharaoh's obstinacy. He ordained it for His purposes. It was the same with Judas. It was not "fortuitous" that Judas would betray Jesus at precisely the right time. It was ordained.
Ah, but God "built" them that way, so how is it Hitler's fault that he killed millions of people indirectly? He had no free will and God ordained it. Thus, God will be judged in the after life for "ordaining" a Hitler?
There is no one qualified to judge God, so I don't understand the suggestion. It is Hitler's fault for what he did because he and everyone else is responsible for his own sin. God had no duty to grace him to such a degree as to prevent it. For His reasons, God passed over Hitler when He was giving out saving grace. Although to us, the horror of the holocaust is unimaginable, it nonetheless served God's purpose that it happened.
Post-salvation sanctification vs. salvation as process. Could you tell me how you distinguish salvation and sanctification?
Where does Paul say that they are immune from returning to that style of life?
I associate myself with BD's most learned response. :)
It would be pointless to address this verse to people who were not in ANY danger of returning to that life. Peter EXPLICITLY DOES say that.
It is righteous to preach against backsliding. That is a danger every Christian faces. It is a much more subtle point whether the backsliding can be permanent or not. Paul appears to think it cannot be permanent.
Paul addresses Christians and reminds them that they can return to their former life and lose their inheritance. Isn't that what Paul had been saying in the previous few chapters, such as in 1 Cor 3 and leading up to 1 Cor 6?
OK, I'll bite. Where does he say that? BD already showed that Paul said that can't happen.
Of course God had a free will decision. He decided to let the serpent into the Garden, all the while knowing what would happen, and also knowing all the ensuing consequences if He wanted some of His creation ultimately in Heaven with Him. He knew from the beginning that if He allows man to fall that only one thing would be able to save him (man). God decided it all.
Does His nature REQUIRE such an extravagant show of love? Or was it a free will decision? Now, it appear that you are saying God does not have a free will, either! His "nature" made Him do it?
God's justice requires what it requires, whether an act of love or wrath. If God had decided to let all men be lost, then that would have been fine with God's justice. But He didn't. He wanted to save some. OK, how can God do that while remaining true to Himself? Answer - He takes the punishment in the place of those He wishes to save. What is the punishment for all sins? Death. That's God's own rule, so He goes by it. In order to be true to Himself, Jesus had to die for some to be saved.
No, it doesn't say that at all. Where does Jesus recognize those he rebukes as Christians? NO WHERE. As I said before, to Apostolics a Christian is anyone who claims to be. The Bible has a stricter standard than that.
However, God is the one who determines whether HE "knew" YOU.
That's right, God determines.
The Bible is correct because God ordained that God's Church would and did accept it. There may be minor variations in different translations, but I've never come across anything earth shattering. The essence is still there in most major translations. But if you are talking about such things as the Mormon Bible, then it is wrong because God's Church did not accept it.
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.