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.
Sounds like someone attached to a divine tractor and being dragged like a rag doll. We believe in cooperating with the Holy Spirit, as a patient would cooperate with a physician. We can always refuse. But in Reformed theology, one is ambushed and taken hostage by the Holy Spirit, and then frogmarched off to heaven, to borrow Mark's terminology.
As you see it. I will not argue with you about something you haven’t experienced.
***As you see it. I will not argue with you about something you haven’t experienced.***
The problem with the concept of the indwelling Holy Spirit as proclaimed by the enlightened ones of the Reformation is that this is exactly what was proclaimed by the enlightened Gnostics.
Reformation theology makes no sense; neither does the indwelling if compared to the indwelling of the clinically insane. God certainly does indwell the believers; yet the like of Charles Manson claims indwelling.
To sneeringly claim that one will not argue about an experience that one has not, well, experienced, is silly. It does not convince. It does not follow.
It is, however, Gnostic. Does that please you?
No, but then again, you never have. Call me when you have the Spirit. You’ll know.
Look, I have no problem with you believing whatever it is that you experience. We (the Apostolic Church) do not believe what you (Protestant Calvinists) believe.
Your side claims that everything man does is God's will. To me, that sounds like putting everying we do (good or evil) in God's lap.
Now that we know what we believe, what's there to argue about? But, if by "argument" you suggest that you are right and we are wrong, or that somehow we both state unreasonable claims, I say prove it!
Since I don't claim being captive or led, I have nothing to prove. Your side, on the other hand, claims the indwelling Holy Spirit leading you to sanctification.
Tell me, is it an infallible knowledge the Calvinsits claim? Or is it possible that what appears to be the Holy Spirit might be indwelling Satan disguised as the Angel of Light? If so, how would you know (since you would be deceived)?
I find it interesting if not amusing that the Reformed deny the Holy Spirit working through sacraments in His Church, yet claim with absolute certainty the Holy Spirit working in them!
They so readily question the infallibility of the Church and its Councils, yet claim with complete conviction that they infallibly know what indwells them is the Holy Spirit and not demons.
As Mark observed: it is this kind of hidden, personal knoweldge that makes Calvinism at its core totally Gnostic.
“You should spend more time around REAL protestants. We drink beer and everything :>)”
Now that’s encouraging! :)
“We call it sanctification, the Holy Spirit working in us to be more Christ like.”
Well, you should call it “theosis” and thus avoid confusion....
“Leading the repentant man to undertake spiritual work, the Holy Spirit, Who called him to repentance, also grants him His comforts and teaches him not to turn back nor be attached to anything of this world. To this end, He opens the eyes of the soul and gives her to see the beauty of the purity reached through the works of repentance. In this way He kindles in it zeal for complete purification both of itself and of the body, that the two may be one in purity. For this is the aim of the teaching and guidance of the Holy Spirit - to purify them completely and bring them back to their original state, in which they were before the Fall, by destroying in them all adulterations introduced by the devil’s envy, so that nothing of the enemy should remain therein. Then the body will become obedient to the dictates of the mind in all things, and the mind will masterfully determine its food and drink, its sleep and its every other action, constantly learning from the Holy Spirit to “keep under” the “body, and bring it into subjection” (I Corinthians 9:27) as did Apostle Paul.” +Anthony the Great
“The deifying gift of the Spirit is a mysterious light, and transforms into light those who receive its richness. He does not only fill them with eternal light, but grants them a knowledge and a life appropriate to God. Thus, as Maximus teaches, Paul lived no longer a created life, but “the eternal life of Him Who indwelt him.” Similarly, the prophets contemplated the future as if it were the present.” +Gregory Palamas
‘Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?’ (Prov. 6:27) says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god.” +Symeon the New Theologian
Comments?
***No, but then again, you never have. Call me when you have the Spirit. You’ll know.***
Gnostics are “people who know”, and their knowledge at once constitutes them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.
Seems like your confession fits the bill quite well.
Holy Spirit, Who called him to repentance
I believe the Calvinists would say "Who gave or better yet—granted him repentance," because God wants a sinner to repent and such a sinner has no choice but to repent.
One would think that, being Spirit-filled, the "real Protestants" Irish is talking about would not be drinking "beer and everything" but would rather live saintly lives, and probably walk on water! :)
If asked, how would you PROVE the existence of God? How do you know he exists at all and not a figment of your churches imagination to keep you in line? How do you prove the existence of Siberia, unless you’ve been there? You have to take the word of those who have, or disbelieve everything. A lot of this is FAITH. Faith in what is NOT seen. Trying to explain faith to someone who has never experience it is like trying to explain green to a blind man.
I guess what I am saying is that I feel sorry for you because you do not have the faith to believe in God. You believe in your church and what it says about God, you believe in the Fathers of the church and what they say about God, but I am really having a hard time understanding how you can put so much belief in them and not the book that God says he wrote. Both of my examples turn to the Bible as their source, and yet you deny it.
self ping to keep up.
All good works of the Spirit, but I would take exception to becoming gods, at least while we are still on earth. It is only when we are face to face with our Lord and Savior will we become “like” him. Until then, we are a work in process.
Only the most “saintly” protestants (they would of course be Irish)can drink beer AND walk on water at the same time :>)
“Only the most “saintly” protestants (they would of course be Irish)can drink beer AND walk on water at the same time :>)”
He’s right Kosta. Just ask any Orangeman (ducking)!
Of course, there have been many who, after drinking more than their share of beer, THOUGHT they could walk on water, much to their dismay :>)
Remember, an Irishman is never drunk if he can lay on the ground, hold onto a blade of grass, and NOT fall off the earth :>)
No, we say “called” also.
If I see a building, it is evidence of a builder. If I look at the universe ("the Creation"), it is evidence of a Creator, based on our knowledge that all things are caused; it is cause and effect. God is the cause and the world is the effect.
Something was the first step (the first cause) in a chain reaction that caused all this to exist, something that by necessity pre-existed the existence, something not of this world. That first cause is what we call God.
It really takes a very special person to deny that something caused all this to exist, or to claim that a house just built itself from ground up!
The Creation was created to procreate based on created physical laws, perpetuum mobile (perpetual motion), a self-generating and re- generating mechanism.
The second thing we know, based on what we can see, is that mercy is not found in animal nature. Only humans are capable of mercy, but it is not intrinsic to our nature; it must be learned from without. And since it is found in no other species on earth, we can safely say that mercy is something we know that is not of this world .
In the course of human history we have come to connect God with mercy, as we see that the world we live in is full of abundant blessings, and that with our capacity and knowledge we can truly live in paradise if we follow that which is not of this world.
Different peoples have developed different ideas of what or who that first cause is and what mercy means; they are human constructs that reflect humanity in different shapes and forms. This is where we begin to depart from things knowable (self-evident truths), to man-made attributes about God.
The bulk of our faith is based on our man-made constructs and preconceived notions because the core tells us very little about God, except that He is the First Cause who gave us plenty in abundance.
You are not asking this in seriousness, are you? You are placing objective geography on the same level as something as subjective as the indwelling spirit guiding you? Please. We can show that Siberia exists the same was we can show that the bible is objectively a book. But we can't show that it is objectively the word of God.
I guess what I am saying is that I feel sorry for you because you do not have the faith to believe in God
I appreciate your sorrow, but I do believe in God, perhaps just not your version of God. The Muslims believe in God. So do the Hindus. So do the Jews. Yet they all reject Christ as God. Does that mean they don't believe in God if they reject our God?
The Reformed God is not the God of the Church. He is the God of the Reformation, just as the Mormon God is the God of Mormons and not Christians.
Where does the Bible say God wrote it? Even if it does, what does that prove? The Koran says that God dictated it to Mohammad. The Torah says God dictated it to Moses. Is that, in and of itself, proof that it is true?
No, of course not. We believe what we choose to believe. You choose to dismiss the Koran and believe the Bible. That's why we can't speak objectively about the Bible as the word of God. We can only accept is subjectively as such, and say "I believe the Bible is the word of God."
The Church doesn't have all the answers, as I have painfully discovered myself, and as I have tortured my fellow Freepers with it.
But, the Church is here to provide spiritual guidance based on love we recognize as God's mercy, and in imitating it.
In accepting the combined wisdom and love of the Church, whose lifestyle is in the liturgical worship, and in biblical readings, and in documents that survive earliest Christianity, I submit to it voluntarily because it is a great source of joy and beauty. I am convinced that if all of humanity lived the life of the Church, we would truly have paradise on earth!
Regarding the Bible, we know it is a canon of books (that actually varies a lot more than most poeple realize) written by human beings. Everything else beyond that is a speculation.
We know that the Bible contains many things that reflect the understanding of the authors and are factually false (i.e. bats are called "fowl"), and contains cultural and other attitudes of the authors and the realities of the society they lived in that are clearly not acceptable or extant in modern societies (i.e. slavery).
In reading the bible we must look for the spiritual message (God's loving mercy) and not the human attributes and factual errors the authors included knowingly or unknowingly. So, if you can't find mercy, it is probably not from God.
It was the Church hierarchy that determined the canon of what you consider infallible word of God. How can you trust them on that and not on anything else?
Actually, the objective truth is that most of the books that were considered canonical from the start were the books that existed and were read in the earliest churches by the end of the 1st century (the Epistles and the Gospels).
The New Testament deuterocanonical books appended to the bible were the source of controversy, as they did not appear until later, and were not read in all churches.
The objective truth is that many of those books were eventually included in the Christian canon through such "inspired" methods as bargaining and swapping (such as the book of Revelation for the book of Hebrews).
Others were simply dropped for no apparent reason, even centuries after Christ (i.e. the Epistle of Barnabas). Did those suddenly become "uninspired?" Or were they never inspired and the Church couldn't decide? Or simply because there was no other book they could bargain and swap!
If you are called, you don't have to answer. But if you are (by predestination) prevented from answering or forced to answer, it is not your doing (not your call). So, then, what's the purpose of being "called?"
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.