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.
BIG difference FK. Since we are essentially nothing like God, we can know what God is NOT, but not wht God is. This is the backbone of apophatic theology of the East. We know that God is not mortal, and we know that God is not mutable. It is easier to express what God is not then what God is. We can say that God is Justice, but we must understand that tbhis is not our justice. He is Love, but not our love.
So, when be begin to become like Him through grace, we attain some of His capacity to love, to forgive, and God tells us that we shall also attain immortality in His likeness.
It is not that we "know" what justice is; we become just through His grace, which is a process and not an instant. The more Chirst-like we beocme by following in His footsteps, the more just we become.
The Reformed ARE "Jews" in the sense that Paul
Oh I will agree with that! The Reformed are judaizers. That much is clear.
Let us say that I did not find your response to be "persuasive"
You can say that again.
Thank you jo. You took the words out of my mouth.
Ephesians was written in Greek not Hebrew.
” So, when be begin to become like Him through grace, we attain some of His capacity to love, to forgive, and God tells us that we shall also attain immortality in His likeness.
It is not that we “know” what justice is; we become just through His grace, which is a process and not an instant. The more Chirst-like we beocme by following in His footsteps, the more just we become.”
Thus:
“Do not deceive yourself, God is fire and when He came into the world, and became man, He sent fire on the earth, as He Himself says; this fire turns about searching to find material — that is a disposition and an intention that is good — to fall into and to kindle; and for those in whom this fire will ignite, it becomes a great flame, which reaches Heaven.... this flame at first purifies us from the pollution of passions and then it becomes in us food and drink and light and joy, and renders us light ourselves because we participate in His light”
So that,
“In the future life the Christian is not examined if he has renounced the whole world for Christ’s love, or if he has distributed his riches to the poor or if he fasted or kept vigil or prayed, or if he wept and lamented for his sins, or if he has done any other good in this life, but he is examined attentively if he has any similitude with Christ, as a son does with his father.” +Symeon the New Theologian
Simple, FK. :)
That is a lame argument BD. It doesn't because the verse does not say what Athena 1 said. It does not say that man CAN NOT do something; only that man doesn't.
You seem to take every opportunity even if unrelated to throw a barb at the "church." The Church has hsitorical foundation and documents proving its faith. Protestants have a many different bibles and many different theologies based on private interpretations. At least I know that what we beleve is what the earliest Church believed.
Indeed.
“...the sword of fire was placed at the gate of paradise to guard the approach to the tree of life; it was terrible and burning toward infidels, but kindly accessible toward the faithful, bringing to them the light of day.” +Basil the Great
Orthodoxy in its purest form.
With respect, sir, yes you do. http://www.tulip.org/ccr/reformed.htm says that:
“While Calvinism holds that man is saved by unconditional and efficacious grace, Arminians teach conditional and resistable [sic] grace. Reformers taught that man was worthless and needed God’s Spirit to make them alive and give them faith, and that regeneration was limited to the elect... Reformed churches today still work hard to hold to scriptural views regarding God’s greatness and man’s depravity...”
You have found one unknown writer using the word "worthless" in a completely different context than I was. Here, the writer is clear that he or she is comparing to the Arminian belief that man has some innate "worth" that allows him to contribute to his own salvation. If we magically assign value or worth to such a supposed innate ability, then yes, under Reformed theology, man is WORTH LESS. I, OTOH, was talking about the worth of man himself to God. If we as beings were of no value to God, then He wouldn't have bothered to create us. You are mixing apples and oranges.
“The Church has hsitorical foundation and documents proving its faith.”
Christianity is a revealed religion;revealed by its founder, God. So please explain what are the revealed “historical foundation” and documents. According to your previous posts, it can’t be the scriptures since they are unreliable not being the original autographs and having been copied many times over the years by many different scribes. So what are the infallible documents and foundation and how do you know they are reliable?
“You seem to take every opportunity even if unrelated to throw a barb at the “church.”
No, I just want to know what the church is relying on for its salvation and how it knows whatever it is relying on will get it there. If you say it is “oral tradition”, liturgy, seers, ancient tradition, then how is it any different than what the Masons (who trace their founding to Solomon) or the mystery cults claim?
Are we now equating God’s ordaining physical death with ordaining them to hell? That is a logical as well as Biblical fallacy.
No, of course not. God ordains the physical death of all people, whether they are going to Heaven or hell. He ordains where they are going as a separate action. :)
We have never said that God does not use people’s sufferings or death according to His will and plan. We just don’t equate physical suffering and death with eternal damnation.
Does this mean that you accept the historical truth of that long list I posted about the OT? Did God really do all those things?
Very well put; however shouldn’t the Reformed add the caveat that under Reformed theology, anyone cannot believe in Christ. Only the few can. The rest are sent to eternal damnation and they can do precisely nothing about it.
Thank you. While the caveat is true, it is not something I lead with while witnessing to newcomers. :) There is a saying: "Pray like a Calvinist and preach like an Arminian". I follow this since we cannot know who the elect are, so we treat everyone as a presumptive elect for the purposes of witnessing. There will be plenty of time later to explain the caveat, once the person is weaned from the milk and is ready for meat. :)
lol. I wouldn't be bragging about that. With that logic, what we can know of God is that He is not a bicycle and He is not a raccoon and He is not a liquor store.
God doesn't spend a lot of time defining Himself in the negative. If we read God's word, we find He reveals Himself to us a great deal...for those who have been given eyes to see and ears to hear.
"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God... Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" -- Isaiah 44:6,24
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." -- John 6:25
"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." -- John 8:12
"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture... I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." -- John 10:7,9,11,14
"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" -- John 11:25
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -- John 14:6
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman... I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." -- John 15:1,5 "I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King." -- Isaiah 43:15
From the site...
1) The Holy Bible is the innerrant and infallible rule of faith and practice. All of Christianity is under the authority of this, God's word. 2) The Lord God Almighty is God of all heaven and earth. He is most holy, wise, righteous, loving and just. This Triune God is of three persons who are equal in power and glory - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit - but is one in substance and divine essence. He alone is due all worship. 3) The Lord God is a sovereign God. This means He is no mere spectator but that He reigns supreme and secure, that none can thwart His divine will. His will is firmly established throughout time according to His counsel and good pleasure. 4) In accordance with His will He has a plan of salvation for His sheep. He has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to be born under the virgin Mary, to dwell among us, to suffer death and be a precious atonement for His Church, to be bodily resurrected and receive all glory and honor, and to return one day to judge both the living and the dead. 5) The Reformed Faith contains sound doctrine that emphasizes the majesty of the Lord, the lowliness of man, and the rich and amazing grace by which His Church has fellowship with Him... The REFORMED FAITH believes:
Anyone, FK? Or for the Reformers, did He bring some bad news too?
Anyone God chooses, sure. :) I can't think of any bad news. Those God does not choose will not want Him anyway. During life, they will not care about what they're missing.
Interesting.
I found this sermon from Calvin: http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/2007/09/05/calvin-on-general-love/
which says:
What is man? because God has so abundantly poured forth his favour upon a creature, so miserable, contemptible, and worthless; but that there is no cause for such admiration of God’s favour for Christ, who is not an ordinary man, but the only begotten Son of God.
Ahem. Calvin called mankind worthless. The late, great Calvin Himself (Peace Be Upon Him) called mankind worthless. You may say a Nicene Creed, followed by the Lord’s Prayer, followed by 10 Hail Marys, the Doxology, and the Guadalupe Prayer.
Certainly God has ordained the deaths of many folks. Doubtless He continues. What does that have to do with their Afterlife?
I can’t think of any bad news. Those God does not choose will not want Him anyway.
Are you postulating that the reprobate will like hell?
Thanks Dr. E. Great scripture, as always. :)
KOSTA: Of course we do: none! No one was saved before Chirst came to save the world. There was no salvation for anyone before Chirst.
Is this dogma for the EO, or does this opinion fall under your private interpretation?
Your Bibles are built upon fallible man who have the world’s interests at heart and not God’s. The elitist and snooty attitudes are at odds with the Gospels; that is why I would say that the Reformed are pleased to dispose or dispense with them.
The Reformed seem to believe that the Holy Spirit is a force that either God the Father or Jesus Christ send out as an emissary, a pale reflection of the real power. Another heresy to add to the pile.
The Reformed Lord is one that frogmarches humanity through its paces and refuses to accept responsibility for His directives.
The Reformed Lord proposes to dispose of the main part of His people to the everlasting fires of hell for His pleasure.
The Reformed Lord apparently believes in a misinterpretation of Paul which leads Him into noxious theology and a general condemnation of all humanity.
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.