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.
Not at all. That logic would have the OT and NT being incompatible. My position is that they are complimentary. They are both 100% correct and true. God can walk and chew gum at the same time. Therefore, He can be a God of total love and a God of total justice simultaneously.
I see a denial of a part of God's essence because by human standards it makes Him appear to be mean or cruel. My view is that our human standards are irrelevant when contemplating the essence of God that is actually revealed to us in scripture. He is Who He is. God obviously does not reveal to us ALL that He is, but what He wants us to understand about Who He is. That's why I can't give up on the OT. I think God is really trying to give us some information there about Him. And I, for one, am just as comfortable with the revelation about Him in the OT as with that in the NT. I can say that if I refuse to apply human standards to God.
Being saved does not mean a person has been full of grace throughout their life, and it is NOT an individual name change in the Scripture.
Perhaps you should change your name from Blue Duncan to “Saved” and proclaim yourself equal to the Blessed Mother-;)
Good Night!
The essence of God is completely unknowable, FK. Humans cannot know or contemplate Ο ΩΝ.
I understand your argument. Yet, we know what the Church believed from the very beginning. We have proof of that. I get my faith through the documents of the Church, the 1700 yer-old-liturgy, etc. that the earliest Christians believed what we (Orthodox) believe based on their copies of the Bible—which we no longer have, but we have their writings telling us what they believed!
Based on the Bible alone, there if no proof because the earliest copies of the Bible known are 300 years after Christ, and shred and fragments of earlier copies are incomplete and most of them contain but a few verses. And now we know that all those copies DIFFERED from each other! Surely you don't think God dictated diefferent versions to different people!?
You are right: it is a waste of time to base your faith on the bible alone.
The Bible was written and re-written by men, changed, deleted, added, translated and retranslated, etc. Yet you treat it as if it were God. But there is no original to compare it to. Surely you don't imply that the authors of KJV, for example, were "inspired?" For, they themselves admitted that they were not.
So, what do you get when you mix pristine with profane? It's not pristine, for sure.
Well, God has predestined that all of His elect will receive efficacious saving grace. This grace has never failed to produce true belief. At the point of true belief, the Holy Spirit indwells the believer as an unalterable seal, guaranteeing both the truth of the belief, and the resulting entry into Heaven. So, within time, I would submit that belief is evidenced, on Godly terms, by whether the Spirit has indwelt. Holy Spirit will not indwell false believers.
Who is the pillar and foundation of the truth? That's good enough for me.
Regards
"[This is] a faithful word: That if we are dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]; if we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]; if we deny [him], he also will deny us" 2 Tim 2:11-12
If you want Him to leave, He will do so.
Regards
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.
How does that prove your point? I still read the above verse as written to the plural "you", the COMMUNITY, not to Fred Smith, Ephesian bartender and budding Calvinist... Paul was not writing to an individual, except in the case of Philemon and perhaps the Pastorals.
Regards
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 may not have required the full understanding that WE have of Christ, but the fundamentals were the same. Grace through faith in God for salvation. Many of the OT righteous interacted directly with Christ and then looked forward to His Incarnation. We simply look back. I don't see how the rules changed. The God of the OT is still the same God in the NT.
FK: “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.
I didn't realize that +Athanasius thought the prophets were babblers. :) Now we have OT authors writing without even understanding what they are writing. Does the same apply to NT writers? It seems to me that the meaning of the term "inspired" is losing all value quickly. I say that because I assume that the Church blames the writers for their errors because they did not understand what they were writing.
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”.
Human standards. People want their God to always be "nice" and only do sweet things that make sense to them. The OT and NT both portray such a God, but the OT also portrays a God with other qualities. For example:
Nah 1:2 : 2 The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies.
Of course the point here is not to say that this is ALL that God is. That would clearly be false because we are told so. The point is do we just throw all these verses into the trash bin because they make us feel uncomfortable, or do we deal with them as a revelation of God to us?
I know. It's because they were both humble sinners before God, equally in need of a Savior. :)
I am sure He foreknew it; He is just not quoted as saying anything about it.
Your example of 49:5 can be countered by other examples form the OT where even the unbelieving Hebrews are referred to as "Gentiles" (Gen 12:2 and 25:23). There is nothing specific about the word Gentile (a Latin word meaning "clan" or "tribe." The same is true of the Greek equivalent ethnos, and Hebrew "Goy."
It is in the NT that we see more famliar usage of the word Gentile to denote a non-Jewish (pagan) individual. This is further accentuated in the KJV version of the Bible.
That's fine with me, FK. I will put my bets on the God portrayed in the Gospels and you can beieve in the OT God.
If the idea of the God of the OT was the same as Christ, then the Jews would have recognized Him as God. Instead, they expected, even demanded an OT despot God. So they mocked Him:
To the Jews, a sovereign God would not allow Himself to be humiliated and tortured and killed like a common thief. They expected, indeed demanded, that He react just as the God of your OT verses portray Him—by smiting His enemeis and driving the fear of God (no pun intended) in their hearts.
They could not imagine a suffering God! He was a big "sissy" in their eyes. It's actually a deformed image of God. Had the Jews received full revelation, they would have recognized Christ.
So, God is doing things that displease Him?
But if no one ever died from God, then as I just posted to you, we have to scrap the entire OT
Unless someone can reconcile those verses with God and His message of the Gospels. And I think the Church did that just fine.
The Gospels in fact hardly even mention these events. The Gospels make references to pertinent passages from OT, the ones Christ chose as being in harmony with His teaching. He also re-interpreted some misconceptions received directly from the OT.
The essence of God is completely unknowable, FK. Humans cannot know or contemplate Ο ΩΝ.
I appreciate what you mean, and I would certainly agree that we cannot know His essence completely. However, I do think that God does share SOME understanding with us about it. For example, is it God's essence that He is Holy? Of course. Does the Bible give us ANY understanding about what that means? Yes, over and over. Christ is the bridge to what we can understand and know. And of course there is no shortage of writing on the subject. Here is an excerpt with scripture references from Holiness by Joel R. Beeke, a Reformed professor at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary: (You might even like some of it :)
HOLINESS IN SCRIPTURE: SET APART -- In the Old Testament, holiness is spoken of primarily in relation to God. “The LORD our God is holy” (Psa 99:9). Holiness is God's very nature—the very foundation of His being. Thrice holy, intensely holy is the Lord (Isa 6:3). God is Holiness. Holiness is God's permanent crown. It is the “shining of all His perfections,” as the Puritans used to say. Holiness is the backdrop for all else the Bible declares about God.
The Old Testament concept of divine holiness presents three cardinal truths about God: First, it denotes the separateness or otherness of God from all His creation. The most common Hebrew word for holy, qados, has as its most fundamental meaning—to be separate or apart. God is above and beyond all His creation. Nothing is like Him. “To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto Him?” (Isa 40:18). “The LORD He is God; there is none else beside Him” (Deut 4:35,39; I Kings 8:60; Isa 45:5,6,14,18,21,22; 46:9; Joel 2:27).
Secondly, it denotes God's total “apartness” from all that is unclean or evil. God is moral perfection. His holiness is total righteousness and purity (Isa 5:16). His eyes are too pure to condone evil (Hab 1:13).
Thirdly, due to God's being set apart by nature and from all sin, He is unapproachable by sinners apart from holy sacrifice (Lev 17:11; Heb 9:22). Only with bloody, life-giving sacrifice can the holy God justly dwell among sinners (for the wages of sin is death, Rom 6:23)—and that for Christ's sake, the Sacrifice to come. In and through the coming Messiah, the unique and perfect God of Israel can live among His chosen people: “I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hosea 11:9). This apparent contradiction— Holy One in your midst —is explainable only through Jesus Christ, God's appointed sacrifice, for the Holy One sees only a perfect Christ when He looks upon His own (cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 60).
From this threefold concept of God as the Holy One, it naturally follows that all associated with God (that is, divine phenomena ) must also be holy. Hence, God's instituted sabbath is “a holy sabbath” (Exo 16:23); His home is the “holy heaven” (Psa 20:6); He sits on a “holy throne” (Psa 47:8); Zion is His “holy mountain” (Psa 2:6); His very Name is holy (Exo 20:7). So, too, His church is called to be a “ holy assembly “ (Exo 12:16) and His covenant people a “holy people” : “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6).
Israel, God's covenant people, is called to holiness by means of holy separation from sin (Deut 7:6), holy consecration to God (Lev 11:44), holy worship of God (cf. the bulk of Leviticus), and inner holiness or cleansing (Lev 16:30; Psa 24:3-4).
I am sure that the Fathers have devoted thousands of pages to God's Holiness as well, with scripture references. So, I just don't think the door is completely shut in our faces as to knowing anything about His essence.
I notice you didn't parallel love and hate; or love and anger or forgiveness and vengence or life and death. That would be contradictory, and require human standards for you I'm guessing. So those pairings need avoiding.
I see a denial of a part of God's essence because by human standards it makes Him appear to be mean or cruel.
We do get that with a literal reading of parts of the OT don't we?
My view is that our human standards are irrelevant when contemplating the essence of God that is actually revealed to us in scripture.
I wouldn't use the word "essence" here, but yes if you take everything literally, some standards are gonna have to go to keep your "compatibility". Actually, the standard of compatibility would have to go from a 100% literal reading.
That's why I can't give up on the OT.
Who says give up on the OT? You can keep it and even some of your human standards.
I, for one, am just as comfortable with the revelation about Him in the OT as with that in the NT. I can say that if I refuse to apply human standards to God.
That would be one way: A kind of 'just keep one-eye closed' approach. :)
thanks very much for your reply..
What? He was directing his statement to Ephesian believers specifically, and all people throughout history to whom the description applied generally, i.e. to those who heard the word of truth and believed. For all of them, Paul says they WERE sealed forever by the Holy Spirit with a guarantee of salvation. By this reading, the statement actually MEANS something. :) By your reading, as far as I can decipher it, Paul was talking to no one and had nothing of value to say (to whomever). What is a general community supposed to do with this information? What possible value could Paul's saying here have to a community if no one could know if he was part of the subject of the saying? It just makes no sense. There are no "if-then" clauses in these passages. It's all past and present tense, including a guarantee.
D-fendr: We do get that with a literal reading of parts of the OT don't we?
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. - Revelation 19:11-16
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matt 5:18
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matthew 22:29
If you deny the OT God then you deny the NT God that was revealed to you.
If the idea of the God of the OT was the same as Christ, then the Jews would have recognized Him as God. Instead, they expected, even demanded an OT despot God.
The OT righteous DID recognize Christ as God in the coming. Some Jews in Christ's time also recognized Him, as the Father revealed to them:
Matt 16:15-17 : 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
-----------------------
To the Jews, a sovereign God would not allow Himself to be humiliated and tortured and killed like a common thief. They expected, indeed demanded, that He react just as the God of your OT verses portray Him—by smiting His enemies and driving the fear of God (no pun intended) in their hearts.
YES, for many Jews this was true, but NOT ALL Jews. Jesus obviously exposed all the Jews who thought as you described as not being righteous. The righteous Jews were not so misguided. As quoted above, the Father revealed to those He would, as He would.
So, God is doing things that displease Him?
Come on, Kosta. :) Why else would you be using the word "delight" (in your original comment) but to make the Reformed view appear to support a blood-thirsty God who enjoys the suffering of others? No sale to me, and no sale to lurkers. :) God's justice simply is what it is. If God's justice had mirrored man's justice exactly, then we'd all be dead. Praise God that it doesn't.
FK: "But if no one ever died from God, then as I just posted to you, we have to scrap the entire OT."
Unless someone can reconcile those verses with God and His message of the Gospels. And I think the Church did that just fine.
Well, that's what I've been waiting for. How does the Church reconcile the weight of evidence that I gave recently in that (non-exhaustive) list?
The Gospels in fact hardly even mention these events. [God killing in the OT]
When the Gospels don't mention tons of times the events that support the Reformed position, it means that those events were misinterpreted or never happened. When the Gospels don't mention AT ALL events that support the Apostolic position (such as Mary's sinlessness) it means that it was so well accepted that it wasn't worth mentioning in the Gospels. That's a pretty sweet system. :)
If you want him to leave, he's not in you.
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.