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.
Truly, anything we do apart from Jesus Christ is worthless.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: - Romans 3:10
To God be the glory, not man.
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 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
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Gal 5:22-23
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matt 7:15-20
Well, even as you describe it here, the Calvinist approach perfectly matches the verse you quote, Matt. 7:14. At the same time, our view preserves God from being in fact a total failure in terms of accomplishing His wishes. IMO, free will, as I believe Apostolics use it, has God truly loving no one. Under free will here, to God it is infinitely more important for His own children to be free to walk off a cliff to their destruction than it is for them to be saved and be with Him in Heaven for eternity. That's not love at all to me.
In the human comparison, it is God who stands at the mailbox and watches His two year olds run and play in the middle of a busy street, admiring their free thinking. The fact that the vast majority of them get run over and die doesn't seem to bother Him at all. After all, He has the full power to put up a fence, protecting them, but He cares so little that He doesn't bother. The only thing that matters is that they get to express themselves, etc. From the mailbox, of course God will chide His children to be good and stay in the yard, but when they run out into traffic He will just smile, shake His head, and STAND PERFECTLY STILL. I think that's awful. :)
So, when you say "a prayer" part of it is actual prayer, and part of it is non-prayer worship instead? I've never needed to get that technical on this, but if you want to think of it this way, I suppose I don't see it as the end of the world. :)
Those who hold the Calvinist view of double predestination pray without believing that their prayer will change anything and therefore make empty repetitions knowing that their prayers have no chance of affecting God's decision. It is a senseless act.
Not so at all. Things most certainly change after prayer has occurred. You are right that we don't think we change God's mind, what with God being God and all, but since our prayers are ordained and a part of His will they are most certainly of value and do precipitate change.
If someone is predestined to go to hell, no amount of prayer will change that. Just as no amount of sin will result in someone losing his salvation if he had been saved form before the foundation of the world. It's a rigid system and all activity on our part is useless. Plain and simple.
While you are right that no amount of prayer can change predestination, since it was already finished before there was the first man to pray, you are wrong about our activity being useless. It is very USEFUL because it is all according to God's will. Consider what you are fighting for. You are fighting to show that God's will is that we are free to thwart God's will and defeat Him in His desires. Does that sound like something that would be a part of omnipotent God's will? :) Not to me.
It doesn't say "I knew you were going to pray and cry because I ordained it so, my will be done." How can ADDING years to someone's life be part of His plan if it is not conditional?
I'll show you. "Hey look everybody. I'm God and I'm going to add years to this man's life just because I feel like it. No strings were attached in reality, I phrased it the way I did to make a point in the same way I did when I asked where Adam was in the Garden. I actually like to make my own mind up about things that happen in my universe without any advice from the peanut gallery." There you go. :)
The LDS and JWs are reconstructionists. They teach that the church died and they had to rebuild it. (Contrary to Jesus’ words that hell wouldn’t prevail over the church.)
The Reformation is not called “The Reconstruction” for a reason. It was a reform movement, meaning that it was dedicated to the fixing/rehab/healing of a wayward institution.
That never occurs to me since on earth it would have the controlling authority being man running man's plan instead of God running God's plan. Plus, in addition to God totally failing in His desire to have all men saved, it would make Him an even worse failure in His first Covenant, since He is omniscient. (Can God do anything right? :) Haven't you yourself said that God's plan was a gradual revelation to man? Wouldn't that be consistent with a preplanned two-Covenant system?
Also, in this theology, God thwarts His own will by being "bound" by His plan.
God carries out His original plan to the letter because it was perfect. If God's will is thwarted because He is "bound" from changing His plan then that is an admission that there was something wrong with the first plan. (Otherwise, there is no binding, God simply executes His perfect plan.) This would confirm your side's view that God allowed His own failure in His attempt at the first Covenant.
“Not so at all. Things most certainly change after prayer has occurred. You are right that we don’t think we change God’s mind, what with God being God and all, but since our prayers are ordained and a part of His will they are most certainly of value and do precipitate change.”
What change what value where, FK?
In Calvinist thinking, is creation distorted by sin? Can one of the elect, by his very presence somewhere, change creation around him to its created state? Did Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross have any effect on creation aside from people? My guess is that the answer is no, but I ask this sincerely.
Yuck! This is a horrible analysis of God
Dear Brother, I will exercise my "Free will" and pray that God protects you and your family from being run over.
Yet they claim Jesus as their savior. They can cite scripture to support their view. The bible does not say believe in Christ conditionally, does it? Where does it say that one must have correct theology to believe in Chirst?
The Orthodox Church hasn't changed. Our liturgy hasn't changed. Our doctrine hasn't changed. So, if the Reformers wanted to be in the Church as it was back then, why did't they become Orthodox if not for their claim that the Church was somehow in "apostasy" from the beginning? How is that different from the so-called "reconstructionists?"
Aren't the Reformers the ones who say all we need is to believe Jesus is our God and Savior? How is that different from LDS and JW? Whose idea is to throw in the correct theology if not man's? If belief was enough we wouldn't be having theological discussions here.
No, the Reformed INVENTED their own "church" and theology and claim it to be the "continuation" of the the original.
Tradition is merely how the Church reads the Bible and interprets it 2000 years later in today's world. Tradition helps us understand the Church's view on cloning, for example. The Scriptures cannot stand alone without an interpreter to correctly point out what it means. The history of heresy clearly points out the need for an authoritative body outside of Scriptures that interpret it correctly. Otherwise, Christianity would have broken up into factions in the first century.
Calling Mary Co-redemptix(sp) puts her equal to Jesus. Another error. She birthed and raised Jesus, that should be honor enough.
The term "co-" does not imply equality. It means "with". Kind of like I was standing next to someone saving a drowning victim. If you took the time to read more carefully what JP2 says, you will clearly find that Mary is not equal with God or Jesus. Mary plays a special role in salvation because of her presence at the cross, as predicted by Simeon, her obedience to God, and of course, her fiat to God.
Regards
....Or does the calvinists believe these people are created without the ability to pray or do anything out of love at all?
Surly, the “all knowing” brilliant, John Calvin must have addressed this too -:)
“God will be in hell as He is in heaven simply because He is everywhere. So it is difficult to accuse God of just throwing someone into the pit and walking away. He will be there just as He will be with the elect in heaven.”
Are you saying that the the Triune Christian God is the God of hell, as well as the God of Heaven?
Scripture is pretty clear on the fact that men can KNOW that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13). I would assume that you believe as well that one can have assurance that they are at least presently in a state of salvation.
The question is whether or not knowing we are saved now gives us any assurance that we will ultimately be fully and finally saved. I submit Scripture tells us we do have that assurance, for we are told that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit and given an earnest guarantee of our salvation (Eph 1:13-14)...we are told that He is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us blameless before the presence of His glory (Jude 24)...we are told that He is at work within us both to will and to do (Phil 2:13)...we are told that He is able to preserve us and deliver us from every evil work (2 Tim 4:18)...we are told that those He justified will be glorified (Rom 8:30)...we are told He will confirm us to the end (1 Cor 1:8)...we are told we are sealed for the day of redemption (Eph 4:30)...we are told we are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation (1 Pet 1:5)...we are told that whatever is born of God overcomes the world (1 John 5:4)...we are told it is God who give the increase (1 Cor 3:6)...we are told we are preserved in Jesus Christ (Jude 1)...we are told He is faithful to those He calls and will preserve them spirit, soul and body (1 Thess 5:23-24)...we are told none shall snatch His sheep out of His hand (John 10:28)...we are told He is able to put His fear in our hearts so that we will not depart from Him (Jer 32:40).
So much for pleasant conversation. I guess I'm back to just being labelled a heretic.
I have a very busy weekend coming up that actually starts this afternoon. My barbershop quartet is competing tomorrow and my chorus the day after, so I will not be able to post much probably until next week. I do hope that I can continue to explain the Reformed view of election a little more in depth. Until then, have a blessed weekend!
You can argue with history, but it doesn’t support your view. In fact, as you walk through Germany you can see many of the evangelische churches were formerly catholic.
So far as why they didn’t become orthodox, I’m not really sure, but I’ll bet it’s a historical reason having to do with time & space, Islamic incursion, the military might of the Roman church, and remoteness to the west of the eastern Orthodox.
That’s just a guess, but it has some historical validity.
That takes us back to the robotoic "elect" who simply go through the motions because God ordained it so.
While you are right that no amount of prayer can change predestination, since it was already finished before there was the first man to pray, you are wrong about our activity being useless
Well, it depends what you mean by useless. If you go to a movie theater and pray that the film you are watching ends one way, then your prayer is useless because the movie will end the way it was choregraphed whether you pray or not. Nothing you do in that movie theater will change the end of that movie. So, your prayers are useless except that they may give you some hope that maybe, by sheer luck the movie will end as you hope it should. But if you already know how it will end, why pray? It's useless no matter how you look at it, FK.
In addition to that, in the Reformed theology, even God is boxed in with His plan (the "movie"), which is now done, is perfect and nothing can change it. Not even God.
That means the LDS and JW have eternal life as well; it makes no difference how we know God or what theology (trinitarian or not) we subscribe to. Anything goes, as long as we proclaim Jesus as our Savior we are "saved."
So why do you insist that this new creation can do nothing good, even with God's graces moving his will to please God? How are we still worthless? In Christ, I can please God. "Our" acts of love are mine and His - they are pleasing to the Father because they have merit as a result of the Son's action when I do something. We still sin, but that doesn't mean I am a "sinner" in biblical terms. A "sinner" is someone whose life is not in keeping with the Commandments. A person walking in faith is not a "sinner", although he may sin. The big difference is that this occasional sin will be repented of. A "sinner" does not repent of sin.
The person goes from a 0% chance of salvation to a 100% chance.
I wouldn't go that far. We cannot meausure our "chance" of salvation in that way (I presume you mean "eternal glory"). It is statements like that which seem to differ with what Frumanchu said and you agreed with earlier. They are conflicting comments and are, quite frankly, confusing. What DO you believe?
I wrote: BECAUSE we are a new creation, the idea that man can do NOTHING must be discarded.
FK wrote: That's right. Now we can do good.
Wow, well, that was easy...If only I would have thought of typing those exact words months ago... So when you say "we" can do good, that means that man can do righteous acts while under the indwelling of the Spirit and they are counted as his acts in Christ?
Christ came SPECIFICALLY to save His children. He does not finish the good work that we began (if that is what "perfect" means). He will finish the good work that HE began.
Christ came to open the gates of heaven to all men, since God desires all men to be saved. I do not believe in limited atonement, and either does the Scriptures. God offers grace to all men. Whether that grace is efficient or merely sufficient is also dependent upon man's response to God. Being of the elect does not mean that we will enter eternal glory, so we do not know what work God is actually going to "complete" to the end. We are subjective certain that we are on the list, but we really do not know for certain.
Helping the helpless and the poor, etc. is not possible without us??? :)
God works through instruments, whether they are vessels of reprobation or vessels of predestination.
Without intending a shot, is that what "humanism" means in Catholic theology? I have used that word in a very different way in earlier posts to you. :)
Yes, humanism properly defined is the deification or divinization of mankind, and it is never meant in the sense that God is not involved. It is God's Divine Providence that is moving us towards Him and perfecting us. Thus, the earliest Church Fathers said that God glorified is man fully realized.
Regards
Your biblical teaching is based on affirmation and succession of men too. It's based on man's private interpretation of the Bible which the bible specifically warns against.
The point is we do not believe that just claiming Jesus as Savior anyway one feels about it. All others do. That places all others in the same camp as LDS and JW. That's not a "church."
That's an interesting analogy, Kosta!
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.