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'm not having it both ways. You are imposing a duty upon God that does not exist. When God creates a reprobate, where is God's duty to either save him or give him the means to save himself? There is no duty, but you guys tax God with it anyway. :) If God intends to use a reprobate and sin is involved, then all God has to do is leave him alone, and he will sin. That doesn't make God responsible. Only if God "owed" something to the person would He be responsible. None on your side have yet told me what God "owes" to all men.
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.
I have been reading all the posts on this thread and I don't see any problem here. We believe that first Holy Spirit comes into the life of a lost elect and changes his nature, thus enabling him to believe. We might say that the Spirit "touched" the person, but He does not indwell as yet. Then, there is belief. Then, Holy Spirit indwells forever. I don't know if I misinterpreted what you meant by "received", but what I just wrote is pretty standard for our side I think.
If you make a quantitative statement about sin, I’d really like it if you have Scripture to back it up.
OK: :)
Rom 6:1-3 : 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means ! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
How can we live in it any longer? We can't, so the regenerated heart will sin less.
Assuming you are talking about the Deutercanonicals, not really. I have been on FR for about two years now, and Apostolics have quoted thousands of scriptures to me. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a quote from the Deuts. I infer that I'm not missing much.
Man is born with the propensity to sin. No one is born "sinful." As adults, we can choose to sin or choose not to sin. No one is a slave to sin. We can become volunary slaves to righteousness by choosing God whose death on the Cross made that choice possible. But God does not choose for us.
By nature, mankind, after the age of reason, commits sin. Job did, yet in God's eyes he was "perfect." It is up to God to see us as we really are in our hearts, even though we all have sinned.
So, given this overwhelming evidence that man is a sinful creature, where do you think man will go if man does not repent?
But you will say that man cannot repent unless God gives him repentance, so it's not man who is repenting but a robot who is programmed to repent.
FK will have to reply in affirmative because that would be contrary to Calvinist double-predestination myth. It was Luther, after all, who said that we can commit thousands of fornications a day and not worry about them as long as we have accepted Chirst (don't worry be happy religion), because once you accept Christ your past, present and future sins have been atoned for. You are free to sin boldly; your debt is covered with the Blood of Chirst! It's like the story of the Prodigal Son who comes back not to repent and change his ways, but to ask for more money--because it was ordained for him from the beginnng--so he can continue to spend it on anything he wants.
Exactly! It's none of our doing on the one hand and all the blame is on us on the other. Schizophrenic.
No, our nature is still the same, and still drawn to sin. This is manifested by the fact that after Baptism we continue to sin. No one is made righteous and perfect (cf Heb 12:23); only in God's eyes, Who sees the intent of our hearts.
Your theory is that the replacement by the Holy Spirit is "incomplete" and there is a "remanant" of the old nature...it's up to us to work with God to live under grace and not in our nature.
God's sacrifice made it possible for all mankind to be saved. That's God's desire. The sactifice on the cross freed us from the dark pit of eternal darkness brought about by Adam's sin. He pulled us out. Now that we are free, we have a choice.
If we want to jump back into the pit by sinning, that's our decision. If we want to follow Him, that too is our decision.
Those who choose to follow Christ will be saved. He will lead them to salvation. Those who don't will end up in the same pit He pulled them out of.
Love must be free. Forced love is no love.
Very well said.
Show me where does Christ in the NT command that what He taught be written down so that we may believe.
He didn't. Because He was a Jew and He came neither to create a new religion, nor to ordain new Scripture. Nor did He ever command His disciples to preach and carry their ministry to the Gentiles! The Apostles decided to write the NT and to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles based on the fact that the Jews rejected Christ (cf Acts 13:46). Neither was Christ's teaching.
Time for some more Continuing Orthodox Education, FK. God is NOT the author of Death.
“This is evil: estrangement from God.” +Basil the Great, That God is Not the Cause of Evils,
“As many... as stand apart in their will from God, He brings upon them separation from Himself; and separation from God is death.” +Irenaeus Against Heresies 5. 27.2.
“Men, rejecting eternal things and through the counsel of the devil turning toward the things of corruption, became the cause to themselves of the corruption in death.” +Athanasius the Great On the Incarnation.
“For as much as he departed from life, just so much did he draw nearer to death. For life is God; deprivation of life is death. So Adam was the author of death to himself through his departure from God.” +Basil the Great.
The danger of the theology your are espousing is that it quite literally makes God the author/cause of evil. The fact that Death had a salutary effect after the Fall in that it prevented the multiplication of sun completely unchecked does not change this.
Indeed, Jo, the Bible is full of the message that God came to save the world (all), but all will not be saved because mankind loves wickedness more than God. Our choice.
Just as it is the choice of the Reformers to ignore all those parts of the Bible you posted, so they can hold on to their heresy.
Mankind can be saved only through love for God, not by some hocu pocus magic. Those who have no love for God will not come to Him. Love cannot be forced.
It is God's desire (becase He so loveth the world) that all men be saved. It is not His will; it is His desire. I think there is a world of difference there. He offerend salvation to all. His saving grace is for anyone who is willing to follow Him. It is not pre-prgammed "love" or some brain-washing tractor beam attached to the foreheads of the "elect."
He calls us and we have to come to Him on our own. His sacrifice made that choice possible.
FK, the sacrifice is done by Christ. It is a gift. You don't understand the Divine Liturgy (Holy Mass).
I said I would be nice. I will leave it at that.
“God is not responsible for everything.”
WCF:
CHAP. III. - Of God’s Eternal Decree.
1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass
Calvin diagrees with you, my friend.
If the belief comes first, then the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then how does that occur under Reformed theology? I thought that Reformed folks believed that the Holy Spirit hijacked the individual, then the belief occurred.
So we come to the issue of authority.
I find it very interesting that Protestants don’t seem to quibble about the Bible that they use - I know that some cling to whichever version of the King James that they happen to prefer, but they seem in the minority - and don’t really enquire as to the authority of the words and the interpretation that comes from it.
As we know, words mean something. Not you, but several others here are very apt to take phrases within verses as support of their positions; it is very important to understand the words and their positions within the phrases, the verses, and the overall book. I find the NAB to be rather pedestrian, however, I think that it is the best effort to date to translate the original text and intent of the written words that we have into the English of this era.
You may not use the gender-neutral Bibles that seem to be all the rage today, but under what authority do you reject them? How do you know? Is it the Gnostic in you (say ahhhhh and I’ll look for him)? How in the world can you say that this Bible is good and that Bible is bad without the authority of God’s own Catholic Church telling you?
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.
How do you know that a born again / elect / believer / whatever cannot fall away permanently?
The “certitude of salvation” is a creation of the Gnostics which predated Christ, by the way.
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?
Ideas? Jesus talked to the crowds about ideas? He lectured and taught the crowds with ideas? I presume that you mean ideas unconnected with His other teachings.
Odd, isn’t it?
On the other hand, if you would consider that Jesus actually meant something important by it (I guess that we Catholics often mistake the Words of Jesus to be of utmost importance, by Reformed standards anyway) then we need to take it into account when trying to believe in Christ’s teachings.
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.
Many times? Either God foreordains everything or He does not.
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.
What are the standards that you use to judge the Bible by?
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.