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.
God appeared in many different forms to OT Jews. For example, as a whirlwind to Job, as a cloud to the Israelites, and as a burning bush to Moses. Ex. 33:20 says that no one may see God's "face". Ex. 33:11 says they spoke "face to face", AS A MAN SPEAKS TO HIS FRIEND. I think that is the qualifier. God explains it around the first verse:
Ex 33:19-20 : 19 And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
So, I wouldn't get too hung up on the face to face thing.
FK: "Neither of us can have any idea how many of the OT Jews were saved."
Of course we do: none! No one was saved before Christ came to save the world. There was no salvation for anyone before Christ.
I thought we both already knew that can't be right just because of the Transfiguration.
But it's God in the Reformed theology who either opens or shuts ones eyes. If the OT Jews went back and forth in their idolatry, WHO ordained that? If the Pharisees could not recognize Him WHO caused them to not see Him (to this day in fact!)?
God ordained it, and you're right that we believe that it is God who decides whose eyes will be open or shut. So, among the Pharisees who were lost (I don't believe all of them were lost) it was God who hid Himself from them. Cf:
Matt 11:25-26 : 25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father , Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
Matt 16:16-17 : 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.
God appeared in many different forms to OT Jews. For example, as a whirlwind to Job, as a cloud to the Israelites, and as a burning bush to Moses. Ex. 33:20 says that no one may see God's "face". Ex. 33:11 says they spoke "face to face", AS A MAN SPEAKS TO HIS FRIEND. I think that is the qualifier. God explains it around the first verse:
Ex 33:19-20 : 19 And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
So, I wouldn't get too hung up on the face to face thing.
FK: "Neither of us can have any idea how many of the OT Jews were saved."
Of course we do: none! No one was saved before Christ came to save the world. There was no salvation for anyone before Christ.
I thought we both already knew that can't be right just because of the Transfiguration.
But it's God in the Reformed theology who either opens or shuts ones eyes. If the OT Jews went back and forth in their idolatry, WHO ordained that? If the Pharisees could not recognize Him WHO caused them to not see Him (to this day in fact!)?
God ordained it, and you're right that we believe that it is God who decides whose eyes will be open or shut. So, among the Pharisees who were lost (I don't believe all of them were lost) it was God who hid Himself from them. Cf:
Matt 11:25-26 : 25 At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father , Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
Matt 16:16-17 : 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.
“God appeared in many different forms to OT Jews. For example, as a whirlwind to Job, as a cloud to the Israelites, and as a burning bush to Moses. Ex. 33:20 says that no one may see God’s “face”. Ex. 33:11 says they spoke “face to face”, AS A MAN SPEAKS TO HIS FRIEND....”
None of which worked, as +Athanasius the Great points out, FK!
Dr. E. posted many fine scriptures telling us who God is, and I'm sure there are many more. The goal is not to understand God on a level equal with His. The goal is to understand God as He has chosen to reveal Himself to us. Scripture is the principle way He has chosen to do that, and there are clearly many "positive" truths about God that He has given to us for both our salvation and sanctification.
“Scripture is the principle way He has chosen to do that, and there are clearly many “positive” truths about God that He has given to us for both our salvation and sanctification.”
The problem is that the OT was a massive failure in that regard. It is for this reason that the NT exists and the NT, FK, is a creation of The Church and The Church has always used apophatic reasoning to speak about God. Now there is that group which showed up 5-600 years ago who believed they knew better....:)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6
"Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" -- Ephesians 2:5
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" -- John 10:14,26-27"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
As if all this Scripture isn't enough to declare God's election to all those with ears to hear, why did Jesus speak in parables if God wanted all men to be saved?
In the Reformed view, why bother to speak at all?
Ephesians was written in Greek not Hebrew.
I know, but Strong's also covers the Greek. Can no Greek word have a Hebrew origin?
K: The problem is that the OT was a massive failure in that regard. It is for this reason that the NT exists and the NT, FK, is a creation of The Church and The Church has always used apophatic reasoning to speak about God.
A failure? LOL.
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." -- Isaiah 55:11
The Old Testament was to show mankind that he cannot keep the law perfectly; that if a man sins in one part of the law, he has broken all of it; and thus man cannot save himself. this is God's purpose in writing the Old Testament, to foreshadow a new and better covenant, all according to His plan for creation from before the foundation of the world.
Further, Scripture is in black and white and all men the world over are able to read it and comprehend it, if God gives them ears to hear and a new heart to understand.
Unlike magisteriums and church hierarchies which insist they alone are the repository of God's truth and not the Holy Spirit through Scripture. And so by their bestowing or withholding of their sacraments, they presume they can dictate who is absolved of their sins and who remains condemned.
Where is the liberty Christ has bought for us in that?
"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is GOD that justifieth." -- Romans 8:33
Kolo to say that the NT is a creation of the church certainly gives the wrong impression.
Many could easily take that to mean that “the church just ‘made it up.’”
Now, I know you don’t believe that, but a passerby just reading the words could easily come to the conclusion I stated.
“Creation of the church” could mean “fabrication.”
In this instance, you need to be more precise about what you mean.
Because God commands us to preach His word to all nations and races and all men everywhere, confident that those to whom He has given ears to hear will hear the truth and believe. The preaching of God's word is how God has chosen that the Holy Spirit will reach those who are His -- you and me.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!" -- Romans 10:13-15"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How are we to know our salvation? By calling on the Lord. And how do we know to call on the Lord? By hearing the Scriptures and having them come alive in us by the work of the Holy Spirit.
So we have Jesus telling us men don't believe because they are not part of His flock (and not the other way around) -- "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."
Why does the RCC think Jesus spoke in parables?
Padre, do you really think anyone in this crowd would think I meant that The Church just made it up? :) I however, appreciate your good intentions and will in the future avoid such loose talk!
“Can no Greek word have a Hebrew origin?”
No. Greek is sufficient unto itself for theological purposes. After all, it was good enough for God! :)
In this crowd, “no.” Except for lurkers, perhaps. But more importantly, I’d be worried about getting used to the summary.
What is really meant is that the church collected the works of the Apostles and eyewitnesses of the resurrection and verified their authenticity.
“What is really meant is that the church collected the works of the Apostles and eyewitnesses of the resurrection and verified their authenticity.”
Precisely! Even we never changing Orthodox ascribe to that.
God only reprobates those who reject Him. EVERYONE ELSE is "elected" or "predestined". Men are left in condemnation ONLY because they desire it. God desires all men to be saved - but His will is ALSO that God unites Himself to only those who want to be saved. Recognizing our total dependence upon God is crucial to this salvific work that God enacts upon us.
If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.
Again, that doesn't answer the question why all men are not saved. It is a meaningless cliche, akin to "If God wanted men to obey the commandments, they would". I have shown you numerous Scriptures to show your theology is wrong. We have even shown you specifics, such as Romans 5. Really, reformed theology pretends to be biblical, while ignoring huge chunks of the very bible it claims to be infallible...
The problem with the reformed theology is that it parallels predestination to reprobation. They are not identical nor are they analogous. Making them so makes God into a monster who creates SPECIFICALLY to destroy, giving the so-called preselected reprobate no possible chance of salvation. This is not a God who desires men to be saved. Thus, the answer to your cliche is woefully contradictory.
Regards
Fortunately, a lot of Calvinists DID listen to my patron saint...It was certainly a great day of rejoicing in heaven when these lost sheep returned to the flock.
Regards
That’s not the first time we’ve agreed.
We both agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior.
We both agree that the Church includes all true believers of all time.
(And we both agree that doner kebab...or its Greek cousin.... is extremely good eating.)
That's your answer? Cliches? Don't I get a "HALLELUJAH" or an "AMEN, BROTHER"? I feel short-changed...
That's your response to the Bible's clear and clarion teaching that God desires ALL men to be saved? That all men are not saved is not the issue, is it? The issue is whether God desires all men to be saved. Whether Christ died for all men. The bible tells us that this is so. All you are doing is avoiding the issue.
While we may not fully understand the paradoxical stand on this subject, it is crystal clear that an infallible teaching source, the Sacred Scriptures, tells us that God desires all men to be saved. That Christ died for the sin of the WORLD. You can pretend it isn't so, rationalize one extreme over the other, post cliches to me that tell me absolutely nothing, post Scripture links that are red herrings.
But the bottom line is that you are ignoring Scripture verses that are in black and white and beyond refute. Because you seem to place your own intellect above God's ways, you believe you have it figured out and that Sacred Scriptures cannot mean what they say. Very well. However, I do not expect any more silly attacks on Catholicism. Otherwise, I shall post the "look to the lumber in your own eye" verse. No one likes a religious hypocrite, and I would hate to see you become one.
Look to your heart. Ask yourself why your theology contradicts what the Bible clearly says. You don't have to understand it all. I have already said we cannot understand God's ways fully. But you are rejecting God by rejecting His teachings. We must have faith that God does not contradict and the problem is not with Him, but with our limited understanding.
Regards
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.