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.
Obviously, you have never read The Westminter Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, or The Canons of Dort.
Why don't you educate yourself better before presenting yourself as knowledgeable about The Reformed Faith?
They don’t have too. They figure if they continue the lies long enough, somebody might believe it.
Welcome to the discussion.
I think that you are starting off on the wrong foot stating that I have never read the WCF. I have posted numerous posts not only quoting them, but analyzing them from a Biblical perspective.
I appreciate that as an aggresive Calvinist that settled America, you have the upper hand as to salvation theology. However, it does not deter from the posts that I have made in terms of Reformed theology being hateful, wrong, errant, despotic, odious, unBiblical, and, well, appealing only to those that sit around and assure themselves that they are the only worthy ones. Kinda like the high school Student Council once they get out into the real world.
My knowledge comes from the WCF as well as informed posters. Feel free. There is much wisdom to learn at the altar of Calvin. For instance, the WCF states:
CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church
...
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
We Catholics proclaim that the Head of the Church is Jesus Christ. We understand that the Servant of the Servants of God is the human leader of the Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
We also understand that Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) has proclaimed that the successor of St. Peter is the AntiChrist.
Given these opposing ideas, and given that the WCF does not stand up to scrutiny upon theological investigation, and given that Saint Calvin (Peace Be Upon Him) was a theological thug, murderer, despot and tyrant, and the WCF is a witches’ brew of lies, deceit and oppression, then you may be pleased to understand that I consider myself reasonably acquainted with the WCF, its tenets and ramifications, and the consequences of its pronouncements.
The Reformed Faith is a resurrection of three major and possibly several minor heresies. I’d suggest that you acquaint yourself with them before you become too submerged into it.
St. Francis de Sales says nothing different than the Church has been teaching for over one thousand years.
What did God do? He loved the world so much that He gave His only Son for the life of the WORLD... Not just "reformers".
Both the future reprobate who would refuse Him AND the predestined elect who would NOT refuse God.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones those that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together as a hen [gathers] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!" Luke 13:34
That says it all. MAN REFUSES GOD, DESPITE the tremendous love that God offers - culminating with the offering of His only Son... God does not reprobate man before seeing man's demerits. That is utterly ridiculous and outside of Scripture AND Apostolic Tradition.
None of them talk about individual glory to heaven. They speak of entrance into the membership of the Church, the People of God.
It has been a universal teaching that full membership in the Church DOES NOT guarantee glory in heaven. You are confusing "being saved" when we first accept the faith with "going to heaven", which Paul NEVER says is guaranteed in the individual sense - not even his OWN!
Regards
Praise God!!!
That looks great, Dr. E. ! It does appear to be an excellent site.
I read the context of his comment and it was the same as that of the earlier writer. Fallen man, in his own right, considering his personal goodness attributable to himself, is comparatively worthless. I agree with that. I was speaking of man in a completely different context.
Ok good. I'm glad you recognize that, even to this extent. I don't say this fact has any connection to their afterlife. I say God ordains the physical deaths of all people, saved and lost alike.
Really? Effective? Speaking in parables is "more effective" than saying something plainly? Tell that to all the people who didn't understand His parables.
And as for "hiding anything," that's exactly what Christ said He was doing...
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." -- Mark 4:10-12 "And when he (Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Sounds like Christ purposely spoke so that only those with a new heart and new ears given by God could understand Him and believe in Him.
"Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables..."
"Unto you it is given to know..."
That's election.
I was speaking of during life, but that's an interesting issue. By my reading of the descriptions of hell in the Bible, my inclination is to believe that no human could like it. However, I think another poster has commented before based on the old saying along the lines of "There are those who would rather reign in hell than serve in Heaven". That's a good point, so I'm not sure. The only "eyewitness" account from hell that I can think of is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In relevant part:
Luke 16:23-24 : 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
Just from this, it doesn't appear that the rich man was enjoying his stay. :)
You're confusing the reformed faith with the RCC again, Mark.
The Reformed faith says no man is "worthy" of salvation. It's the RCC which says you're good enough and smart enough and pious enough to warrant salvation by all your good works (forgetting that they're all as 'filthy rags.')
You're the guys who say men aren't really fallen; they've just been hindered somewhat in their goal of perfecting themselves through mystical incantations and magical elixirs and ceremonial rituals.
All the rest of your snide remarks about Calvin is just more sour grapes.
We understand that the Servant of the Servants of God is the human leader of the Church of Jesus Christ on earth.
LOL. Where does Scripture talk about any man as a "servant of the servants" who impiously puts himself between God and men? Jesus Christ is the only mediator, Mark. The only one.
I prefer the WCF's description of the guy in Rome who "exalts himself in the church, against Christ."
Calvin never ever presumed himself to be anything but a sinner in need of a Savior. Unlike your "infallible magisterium" and your "infallible pope" and your "sinless virgin."
Repent of all of it.
Well, your rendition is certainly interesting, but all I take from it is your defense of a works based salvation model in which men earn their way into Heaven by scoring enough points on the God-meter. Your side keeps saying that you do not believe in this, yet you all keep posting evidence that you do. For example:
"Bad news is you're all going to Hell, the law wouldn't save you no matter what. All that: "do this, don't do that; God will love you/hate you, bless you, curse you.." Fuggediboutit. Because you sin, and you sin because Adam sinned; Hell's what you get.
I take it from this that you believe that living up to the Law is humanly possible if we choose to be good enough. That's earned salvation. Therefore, it is difficult for me to know what YOUR version of the Good News is.
WE can trust them to the same extent we can trust other documents, which is usually by cross reference.
Based on their beliefs (assuming they were chronologically the closest to the Apostolic teachings) and concepts, we can see that what the EOC teaches today is what was believed then.
I am not making any claims as to the "reliability." Only to the fact that we can go back to check if we have strayed from their belief.
Protestants, on the other hand, assume that the Bible they have is the Bible God dictated to the authors and no one ever "messed" with it. We know for a fact that someone did—repeatedly! That makes your copies of the bible less than pristine, as even the Protestants of the mainline tradition reject "geneder-neutral" varieties of the bible as "unfit" or untrue. The problem is that they assume their copies aren't!
Your argument that the scripture is inspired and therefore must be true is no different than Muslims claiming that the Koran is true for the same reason. They both lack tangible proof.
It reminds me of a Russian colleague who once observed "it must be true; it& is in the komputor." Cpomputolatry and bibliolatry are two facets of the same heresy, BD.
:)
God has a "character?"
This is the tired old accusation that Reformers believe that God somehow gets "jollies" out of the suffering of people. You guys have invented a word picture and then stuck the label on us when all we do is quote scriptures like these:
Rev 4:11 : Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. KJV
Col 1:16 : For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: KJV
Your side takes the word "pleasure" from the KJV and twists it into "jollies". Your argument is with the scriptures, not us. God creates all people ultimately for His own glory. He uses the saved and the lost alike toward this end.
Of course we are to reconcile the two - with Christ as the unifying factor.
By much recent posting, the reconciliation consists of discarding the OT verse if it appears to conflict with the NT verse. So, I am told that God never killed anyone in the OT, that the story of Jonah is a myth, that the flood never happened as described in scripture, that the original Passover story never happened, and on and on. I don't see any reconciliation here. In fact I see something much different. :)
God's motives are ENTIRELY different under each scenario. Christ makes that perfectly clear that it is the inner disposition that matters, not the external work done. Didn't you know that? God creates EVERY person with the potential to recognize Him and love Him with the gifts He gives each man. And while everyone may not accept God's advances, He still uses even THESE to advance His Will. EVERY rational being that God creates has the POTENTIAL to go to heaven. The "reformers" claim something different. It is VAST difference on our views of who God is.
I don't see how you can say this. For example, God has no obligation to create Sam. God creates Sam anyway, knowing full well that Sam will never come to Him. What is Sam's potential to accept Christ? It's ZERO. Yet, you say that Sam still had the potential to come to Him. That makes no sense. Either man can thwart God's foreknowledge (will) or he cannot. If Sam still had the potential to come to Christ, then Sam has thwarted God's will.
FK: "But seriously, saving grace is something that He gives only to His elect."
Do you have some Scripture for that? Where does God say that He denies graces without giving man a chance to accept them?
Sure:
Rom 9:14-18 : 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
There it is. God's mercy trumps man's desires or efforts. Saving grace goes to those on whom He has mercy. For those on whom God does not have mercy, all the good deeds in the world will make no difference. There is also:
Rom 8:29-30 : 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined , he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Eph 1:5-6 : In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
Eph 1:11 : In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ...
Those who are predestined get saving grace. Those who are not predestined do not.
I teach catechism to adults. I have never heard of such a teaching of the Catholic Church. Can you kindly address ACTUAL Catholic teachings on where we disagree, rather than making stuff up? By the way, using Isaiah's ONE verse about filthy rags is hardly a comprehensive view of mankind in the bible, who were made "little less than gods"...It would be good to keep BOTH views in mind, rather than on extreme, since God has told us BOTH through the sacred writers.
Don't you realize the irony of your "traditions of men" that REFUTES part of Divine Revelation found in Scriptures - that book that even Protestants say is infallible?
You're the guys who say men aren't really fallen; they've just been hindered somewhat in their goal of perfecting themselves through mystical incantations and magical elixirs and ceremonial rituals.
I am not familiar with anyone here who says that ANYONE can save themselves. Not even the Blessed Virgin Mary. There are no Pelagians on this thread. ANYTHING that we do of value is BECAUSE we do it "in Christ". Not of our own abilities without God. Dr. E, I think you misunderstand Catholicism (and Orthodoxy)
All the rest of your snide remarks about Calvin is just more sour grapes.
Nonsense. Calvin's teachings had a positive principle (the sovereignty of God) that went beyond what Scriptures themselves called for. Thus, we refute them - they are not legitimate Christian teachings. Double predestination, for example, flatly contradicts the teachings of Christ. NO Christian before Calvin taught that God reprobates ANYONE BEFORE seeing a man's demerits. While Catholicism has taught that God predestines without seeing man's merits, it doesn't follow that reprobation works analogously. It is in contradiction with a number of teachings of Christ - if you want verses, I'd be happy to provide them.
LOL. Where does Scripture talk about any man as a "servant of the servants" who impiously puts himself between God and men? Jesus Christ is the only mediator, Mark. The only one.
Nowhere. Nor does the Pope "put HIMSELF" between God and man. The Church teaches that GOD places men in authority over other men. Can you deny that teaching? Or was Calvin in Geneva an example of one who "impiously put himself between God and men"?
Calvin never ever presumed himself to be anything but a sinner in need of a Savior. Unlike your "infallible magisterium" and your "infallible pope" and your "sinless virgin."
THAT is sour grapes, Dr. E. We attack Calvin's doctrine, not his person. Be careful of becoming a religious hypocrite, my friend.
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.