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.
I agree. ANYONE who comes to Him.
Regards
LOL
I think it is a very good way to describe the differences, but boy did I get the typical "anti-catholic" bomb when I presented the idea.
I think the idea is still just as valid.
Now see, that's the problem, that perhaps I didn't explain very well. How does a Calvinist know they are of the elect for glory? I find this presumption, because Scripture has very little - nothing - to say about the individual being elected to heavenly glory. With that said, how does a person KNOW they are of the "supposed elect for heaven". It is a personal, subjective opinion, not objective. Thus, when a person makes that claim to be of the elect, he has committed to saying he CANNOT POSSIBLY FALL AWAY.
No non-sequitar here. The minute a Calvinist makes that claim, they have overriden the Sovereign will of God, who can now no longer send a person to eternal damnation because the Calvinist has said so... God is no longer sovereign, the Calvinist is. Although OTHER Christians can lose their inheritance and fall away, "most" Calvinists can not, because they have said so.
We also believe though that non-believers may "vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions: of being in the favor of God and estate of salvation" (XVIII,i), and also that assurance is not of the essence of salvation for the elect may have theirs "divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted" (XVIII,iv).
More double-talk, excuse me. The non-believer? At what point on the 'belief scale' does one leave the 'non-believer' zone and become a 'believer who cannot fall'? This is an artificial definition that ignores the fact that WE do not judge whether we are going to heaven, nor do we KNOW the absolute criteria that God will use to determine whether our faith was manifested properly by our love. Which human while still alive CANNOT deceive themselves? Are Calvinists immune to self-deception? Hardly. A person may have firm belief that they are elect - living the faith for 20 years - and then fall away. That is reality. Now, during that 20 years, did this Calvinist believe they were without doubt of the elect? Well, they deceived themselves, making the whole idea of self-election faulty.
To reiterate, we do not believe all Calvinists are saved/elect, and it is as entirely possible to see a professing Calvinist fall away as virtually all other groups.
Tell me of one current Calvinist who RIGHT NOW believes that he MAY fall away...All the ones that I have spoken with have already done God's work for Him - they judge themselves as saved for heaven. Do you know any Calvinists who wonder if they are "elect enough"?
Regards
As usual, you do not understand much about Catholicism/Orthodoxy. It has been said here countless times that we ALONE can do nothing without God. But when recreated and transformed, indwelled with God's Spirit, we CAN do good in Christ. Thus, we don't do anything good ALONE. There is a higher principle acting within us that moves our will and desire.
Unfortunately, you are not interested in hearing that, but prefer your strawman Catholic/Orthodox. It is easier to beat up.
Regards
I have told you countless times, but you do not have ears to hear, or eyes to see, I guess. Thus, you are wasting our time. If you really want to discuss these issues, try to follow what I am saying. Dialogue is discussion between TWO people, not a lecture to me.
Men are not saved because they choose not to accept God's sufficient graces given to ALL men. Until you can accept that, you will never be able to reconcile the Bible's stance on this subject. Nowhere does the Bible say that God reprobates individuals before seeing their demerits. Thus, God gives man an opportunity to commit demerits, despite the grace He gives to ALL men.
Is that clear enough? Or are you still ignoring my posts?
Regards
Like the Mormon, the Catholic is saved ultimately "by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
I left a cult like that.
17. For to be right and good, worship of the Mother of God ought to spring from the heart; acts of the body have here neither utility nor value if the acts of the soul have no part in them. Now these latter can only have one object, which is that we should fully carry out what the divine Son of Mary commands. For if true love alone has the power to unite the wills of men, it is of the first necessity that we should have one will with Mary to serve Jesus our Lord. What this most prudent Virgin said to the servants at the marriage feast of Cana she addresses also to us: "Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye" (John ii., 5). Now here is the word of Jesus Christ: "If you would enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matt. xix., 17). Let them each one fully convince himself of this, that if his piety towards the Blessed Virgin does not hinder him from sinning, or does not move his will to amend an evil life, it is a piety deceptive and Iying, wanting as it is in proper effect and its natural fruit.
Pope Pius X - Ad Diem Illum Laetissimus
Looky!! I found a man, a Pope no less, who uses the word "worship" concerning Mary. By your cockamamie logic it becomes a dogma. Right? Or, is it possible that what you found was the writing of one man and could not be considered a dogma of any Church?
Both sides may have the best intentions – seeking to love God absolutely and as a distant second, seeking to love all neighbors unconditionally. (Matt 22)
Nevertheless the two aspects are opposite at the root because they see different things due to this "centering."
The sufficiency of the blood of Christ is the most important example, as you have suggested here. The self centered side would say the blood of Christ is not enough, that man has a part. The God centered side would say the blood of Christ is altogether sufficient, man is immaterial.
Amen to a careful and Scriptural statement of what actually constitutes righteousness -- is it ours and of this world or is it His and of the Spirit?
All things are made for and through and by Jesus Christ. But as blue-duncan said, Jesus Christ does not intercede for all men. Therefore all men are not acquitted of their sins by Christ, and not all men receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who furnishes God's elect with new eyes and new ears and a new heart with which to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." -- John 3:6-7"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
God's family, made up of Christ's sheep who will be born again by the Holy Spirit at a time of God's choosing, was named and numbered before the foundation of the world according to God's good pleasure and not through anyone's own righteousness.
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone" -- Romans 9:11;30-32 "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth...
And faith is a gift from God given through the Holy Spirit to every member of God's family.
And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." -- Isaiah 8:18-20. "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.
Do men determine whether or not there is light within them, or does God?
"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." -- Acts 22:14
God's plan of salvation is perfect and He accomplishes everything He has planned.
"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." -- 1 Corinthians 12:3
We differ in our identification of the "authority" by whom those principles are laid down.
Protestants say the authority is of God through the holy Scriptures.
The RCC says it's by men and the magisterium.
A higher principle, jo...that sums it up brilliantly. Rather different than being a Reformed rag doll (He calls His chlidren) being pushed and propped up by God.
LOL. I thank God every day of my life that I am "pushed and propped up" by Him.
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13
"Chosen to salvation from the beginning..."
True Christian humility is knowing the Triune God has done it all -- God elects; Christ redeems and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.
Boast if you want that somehow you were able to see clearly and hear accurately and believe truly, with just a little help from your Friend.
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
God works in us not just to do His will, but even to want to.
If a person can do no good without God, something we say all the time, how on earth can you then turn around and say we "save ourselves"? Are you being obstinate on purpose?
That's the first thing you have said that I agree with you on in awhile. Now, let's continue. Read the preceding verse. You will note that WE are to work out our salvation by HEEDING to the One who works within us. Remember, once we are regenerated, we no longer are "worthless" and can do no good. Now, in Christ, we CAN do good. And thus, we will be judged. Your way has God being judged and has God creating evil and sin. Something happens at regeneration to the inner man. He has changed. Don't you realize that? Doesn't this verse tell us ANOTHER principle is within us, guiding us, moving us to do His will - but without forcing us to do it? If God forced us, there would be no point in the preceding verse that you leave out.
It would just say, "lay back and count your blessings, you just won the lottery."
Regards
The word "worship" had different connotations when Pius X wrote that. Can you show that he meant that Mary was to be given the same honor and position as God? That is what we mean by the word today, but does that thought exist in the writing of Pius X??? Context will help you when you read writings from men who are not living in our age and use words differently than we do.
Regards
“But when recreated and transformed, indwelled with God’s Spirit, we CAN do good in Christ.”
“A higher principle, jo...that sums it up brilliantly”
And when does this rebirth take place? Is it temporary or permanant? Is the recreation instantaneous or a journey?
Reformed theology 101.
At baptism, of course.
Is it temporary or permanant?
Nothing in this world is permanent. The world to come will be permanent.
Is the recreation restoration instantaneous or a journey?
Both.
“At baptism, of course.”
How many times can one be baptized?
The word that jo kus used and you said was brilliant was “recreated” and now you are changing it to restored. Why?
Once. It's the beginning of the process. The process is different for every soul. Every one of us is given the same Seed, but we are different soil.
The word that jo kus used and you said was brilliant was “recreated” and now you are changing it to restored. Why?
His billiant answer was not in the word "recreated" but in the concept of being coached by a higher power we didn't have at birth.
The use of "recreated" is a western concept; the idea of restoriation is more in line with Orthodox doctrine what Christ came for: He did not come to save us from God, but to restore us to our original state, purpose, and likeness to God.
The error is that we Calvinists take all things literally as some kind of rule. We do not. By today's standards, many plain meaning interpretations of scripture appear to conflict. But this is not the end of the world or any reflection on the truth of all scripture. We say that scripture interprets itself, and it surely does. So, since we see all scripture as equally true, we look to the weight of all other scriptural evidence to make decisions about individual passages. This actually works exceedingly well. :)
What is the FACE of God FK? What does that verse mean? Can we see God and not die? Or does it have to be God "as He is" in which case Jesus was not God as He is!
The verse means "as a man speaks with his friend". That's it. The idea of God's literal "face" is obviously metaphorical, since God is a spiritual being. It is an expression used so that we can understand the point. This is not a big deal, and this certainly has nothing to do with the Incarnation, so I don't know why you even bring it up.
If we can see God and not die then the Bible is incomplete when it says we can't. If God has no face and the bible speaks of God's face then the Bible is not fully revealing God.
What? The Bible is indeed complete. I don't mean to insult you but isn't this exactly what a Pharisee would say? They were hyper-legalistic with their interpretation of the OT, and Jesus told them (in part) to relax and have some common sense. The OT was clear that God is a spiritual being, not comprehensible to the eyes of physical man in a physical sense. What else do we need to say? :)
The faces and eyes and hands of God are symbolic representations of invisible and ineffable God. These words cannot be taken, like most of the Bible, literally or read like a fairy tale (Reformed approach).
I agree with your fist sentence. So, you are incorrect about the Reformed approach. We do NOT see God as a man with super powers. He is above us all, and no one can comprehend Him close to fully. He reveals to us as only we need.
We can take literally the Gospels because God walked on earth with His disciples, as opposed to appearing to them in their dreams and visions and what not. It was witnessed for three years.
But God spoke openly in parables in the Gospels. How can you say that we must take everything literally in the Gospels? Jesus was plain that He was speaking to those to whom God gave ears to hear and eyes to see.
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.