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.
All your quotes are conjectures. John 6:38 does not say anything about Gentiles. The OT says nothing about evangelizing the Gentiles. Those who'd see Him and believe in Him would become Jewish.
No mention was made of a "new" religion. The earliest of Chirstians considered themselves Jewish and attended synagogue services until they were literally kicked out of them and out of Israel.
It's only at this point that Christianity begins to change form being a sect of Judaism, a denomination if you will, like the Sadducees and Pharisees and Essenes, to a different religion.
Of course, God forknew all of this ... and so, it can be concluded, ... always intended to extend His salvation to the Gentiles.
The Old Testament scriptures do affirm this ...Isaiah 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.And, of course, Jesus was/is God, ... so obviously Jesus was aware and approving of the gospel being preached to the Gentiles at the appointed time.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Actually it should be worded that "as long as Christ remains in us, we are safe."
Now you need to ask yourself a simple question: "Is Christ in you?"
Is he really there?
If so, will He ever leave you or forsake you?
Kolo: "In great measure, FK, what Kosta is saying is in some measure +Athanasius’ point. God became man because men didn’t understand God. Burning bushes and speaking from clouds just wasn’t getting the job done!"
But doesn't this make a shambles of the text of the OT? Either several stories with specific names and specific places are total factual lies, or man was allowed to include a huge amount of error through misinterpretation. If I thought this I would know that there was no way to separate fact from fiction and I would be forced to toss the whole Testament. Of course, I don't think Jesus had this in mind. :)
I know the answer is going to be "read everything through the lens of the NT", but that will require completely discarding much of the OT because there simply is no reconciliation. I could never do that. God's Holy word is either God's Holy word or it isn't.
“I know the answer is going to be “read everything through the lens of the NT”, but that will require completely discarding much of the OT because there simply is no reconciliation. I could never do that. God’s Holy word is either God’s Holy word or it isn’t.”
That is indeed the answer, FK. If the answer were that the OT meant precisely what it seems to say, then +Athanasius was completely wrong and that would mean that Christian Incarnational theology is bunk. Now, that may in fact be precisely what Calvinism teaches. Is it?
God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.
“God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.”
Ahh, my friend, you forgot about Joseph, Mary, Elizabeth, Anna and Simeon, all Old Testament saints who waited patiently for the incarnation.
No one is cutting anything out. Just shedding the Light Christ placed on it. So that we can see it through His words.
Of course you are forced to cut things out. You can't possibly reconcile much of the OT as written through the "lens" of the NT. How do you reconcile the following stories, each of which has God specifically killing or ordering execution? :
Lot's wife for looking back (Gen.19:26), Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" (Gen.38:7), Onan for spilling his seed (Gen.38:10), Pharaoh and 600 chariot captains (plus his entire army) (Ex.14:8-27), For sins around Aaron's golden calf (Ex.32:27-28), Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord (Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61), A blasphemer (Lev.24:10-23), A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath (Num.15:32-36), Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) (Num.16:27), Burned to death for offering incense (Num.16:35, 26:10), For complaining (Num.16:49), For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" (Num.25:9), Midianite massacre (Num.31:1-35), God tells Joshua to stone to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. (Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26), God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). (Joshua 6, 8:1-25),
[continuing:] Joshua kills 5 kings and hangs their dead bodies on trees (Joshua 10:24-26), God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites (Judges 1:4), Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly (Jg.3:15-22), God delivered Moabites (Jg.3:28-29), God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. (Jg.7:2-22, 8:10), The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson (Jg.14:19), The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson (Jg.15:14-15), Samson's God-assisted act (Jg.16:27-30), "The Lord smote Benjamin" (Jg.20:35-37), More Benjamites (Jg.20:44-46) For looking into the ark of the Lord (1 Sam.6:19), God delivered Philistines (1 Sam.14:12), Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death (1 Sam.15:32-33), "The Lord smote Nabal." (1 Sam.25:38), Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling (2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10), David and Bathsheba's baby boy (2 Sam.12:14-18), Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord (2 Sam.21:6-9),
[continuing:] From plague as punishment for David's census (2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7), A prophet for believing another prophet's lie (1 Kg.13:1-24), God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands (1 Kg.20:28-29), God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers (1 Kg.20:30), God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet (1 Kg.20:35-36), Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. (2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9), Burned to death by God (2 Kg.1:9-12), God sends two bears to maul children for making fun of Elisha's bald head (2 Kg.2:23-24), Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah (2 Kg.7:17-20), Jezebel (2 Kg.9:33-37), God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners (2 Kg.17:25-26), Sleeping Assyrian soldiers (2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36), Saul (1 Chr.10:14), God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah (2 Chr.13:15-17), Jeroboam (2 Chr.13:20), "The Lord smote the Ethiopians." (2 Chr.14:9-14), God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out (2 Chr.21:14-19), Ezekiel's wife (Ezek.24:15-18), Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10), Herod (Acts 12:23).
Obviously, these are not just a couple of stories that can be interpreted away (notice that two of them are from the NT). These stories tell us about a part of God that is either real or not. If God would never do any of this, then we must disregard ALL of it. That is untenable to me.
Amen. As is everything God has created -- all according to His purpose in creation.
"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." -- Proverbs 16:4
Who said anything about God taking delight in any of this? :) But if no one ever died from God, then as I just posted to you, we have to scrap the entire OT.
Amen. Once again we have this peculiar notion floating around that some things are out of God's hands.
As if that were possible.
Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands. For now thou numberest my steps: dost thou not watch over my sin?" -- Job 14:14-16"If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.
Seems to me that by your logic, your only choice is to scrap the OT or scrap the NT.
Nope. God does not inject sin into people causing them to sin. He leaves them alone, knowing how they will sin. That does not make God the author of it. On the timing, what I'm saying is that it is unreasonable to say that man is running the show down here, and God just picks His openings for what He wants to happen based on the random chance of human acts. Instead of that I say God determined everything that is going to happen while outside of time. God is in control, not man.
What makes you say that man didn't have the wisdom to combat the serpent? They understood God's command to them - Eve wasn't confused. The problem was they fell to temptation.
They fell into temptation, but didn't have the wisdom to handle it, or even know what temptation was. What did they have of the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing, as yet. One needs wisdom to negotiate such issues, and God didn't give it to them, thus ensuring the result. They had no chance against the serpent. The fix was in.
And what about all the times where judgment is seen as a decision between heaven and hell?
What about them? I recognize there are those verses. We will go through a formal judgment for salvation. Believers will be found not guilty because the penalty has already been paid by Christ.
How is the judgement of your belief measured?
I.e., how is belief measured?
That simply is NOT what the verses say:
Eph 1:13-14 : 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.
2 Cor 1:21-22 : 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
So after reading this, your contention is that Paul was speaking generally to an ambiguous group of people who may or may not wind up being saved? If that is the Church's reading of it, then I will just leave it to the lurker to decide. I can't reason with this since the Church denies the seal of Holy Spirit.
No. He is not talking about an “individual” specific person....And Paul certainly is not making an “individual” name change of the people is talking to.
“Saved” does not mean Full of perfection.The word “saved” is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present. This means someone who endured to the end .It does not mean someone is SINLESS.
Only “One individual person” was called “kecharitomene”
Only the Blessed Mother.
The angel Gabriel uses this as a proper name for Mary, and we all know the significance of names in the Bible, right? Names define who and what the person is. For example, Jesus’ Name means: “Yahweh is Salvation.” And, indeed, that’s what Jesus was and is.“kecharitomene” is what Mary was and is...She is full of perfection-completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.
So, if Mary is “Full of grace,” how can this be if she was a sinner? One cannot be sinful and “full of grace” or “perfectly graced.” That’s a contradiction.
So, therefore, Mary must have been Baptized into Christ, (How else can a person be “full of grace”?) So, the only question is: When was Mary made this? Or, in “Protestant-ese,” when was Mary “saved” ? It must have been before Luke 1:28, right? So, when was it BD?
Saint Stephen is said to be full of grace before he was martyred in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.
The only other time “kecharitomene” is used is in Ephesians 1:6
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp
explains this well
Excerpt;
“The reason why the verb in Ephesians 1:6 does not imply sinless perfection, whereas the form of the same verb in Luke 1:28 does so imply, is this: The two verb forms use different stems. Every Greek verb has up to nine distinct stems, each expressing a different modality of the verb’s lexical meanings.(FH. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 108-109.) Ephesians 1:6 has the first aorist active indicative form, echaritosen, “he graced, bestowed grace.” This form, based on an aorist stem, expresses momentary action,(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166. ) action simply brought to pass.(Smyth, sec. 1852:c:1.) It cannot express or imply any fullness of bestowing because “the aorist tense . . . does not show . . . completion with permanent result.”(Ibid., sec. 1852:c, note.”
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
I must confess that my memory of +Athanasius on this exact point is not strong enough to comment on. I would need some sort of explanation/definition of what you mean by "Christian Incarnational theology". Calvinism takes the OT as it is given to us. Like in the NT, interpretation is needed when appropriate. However, editing out large swaths of text is not an option. We go by the weight of the totality of scripture.
God’s Holy Word is indeed God’s Holy Word. I submit, however, that pre-Incarnation, people, Chosen, elect or otherwise, couldn’t even come close to understanding it.
In that case the OT righteous really could not have been righteous, could they? It would mean that the prophets did not understand what they were writing as they wrote. Does that sound likely? Not to me.
“No. He is not talking about an “individual” specific person....And Paul certainly is not making an “individual” name change of the people is talking to.
“Saved” does not mean Full of perfection.The word “saved” is translated from the Greek word sesosmenoi, which is a perfect passive participle. It means that this salvation took place at some point in the past and is continuing on in the present. This means someone who endured to the end .It does not mean someone is SINLESS.”
That is not the construction of the phrase. Salvation by grace is the gift of God, not of works. You cannot endure to earn the gift, it is given by God freely to whomever He wills. The verb construction is the same used in Luke and it is written to individual believers in the church at Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus, th elatter being descriptive, not commanded, who have been sealed by the Holy Spirit who was given to believers as the escrow (pledge) of their inheritance.
Now, explain how believers who have been saved by grace, a gift given to them; sealed by the Holy Spirit; indwelt by the Holy Spirit as a pledge of their inheritance; promised that Jesus would never leave them or forsake them; and that nothing could sepatrate them from the love of Christ, could lose their salvation.
As an aside, being “highly favored” or “full of grace” has nothing to do with sinlessness. It has to do with how God favors an undeserving sinner, like those to whom Paul writes that they have been saved by grace. As John said, (Jhn 1:16) “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.”
“In that case the OT righteous really could not have been righteous, could they?”
That doesn’t follow at all, FK. To be “Old Testament Righteous’, so far as I know, didn’t require a Christian understanding of theosis.
“It would mean that the prophets did not understand what they were writing as they wrote. Does that sound likely? Not to me.”
Really? Read On the Incarnation again. As for what that theology is, well I think its even what the Reformers believed about the reasons for the Incarnation, but it may be that I am wrong. All this talk of the vengeful, really quite malevolent monster god of the OT that you seem to speak of is no one the Fathers would have recognized save as a bogeyman to frighten the “simple people”.
And even John the Baptist, from the womb no less! :)
Amen, Dr. E. Nothing is ever out of God's hands. And, I just realized that I should have pinged you to 9026 (sorry). The OT cannot just be brushed aside.
Interesting you should mention him. The Fathers felt he was in a class either by himself or connected with only one other person, Panagia. You knοw, in Orthodoxy we call him "ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ Ο ΠΡΟΔΡΟΜΟΣ", John the Forerunner. He is one of the Righteous shown as being raised by Christ in the Resurrection Icon. Now, why do you suppose the Fathers were so impressed with +John the Forerunner that they put him in a class either by himself or (sort of) with Panagia? :)
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.