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 always marvel at Kings because it always starts out with "King So-n-So did what was evil/good in the sight of the Lord" and then it gets into their history. This is the way God looks at us. God already has declared, "HarleyD did what was good in the sight of the Lord, yet he did not removed the high places." and then my history unfolds.
This is the same for Abraham. God called Abraham out of his country and Abraham followed in Chapter 12. I would even suggest that at this point Abraham wasn't even saved by faith-that didn't happen until Chap 15. Abraham wasn't saved by works until Chap 22. But there is no doubt that all the way from Chapter 12 to Chapter 22, God was guiding, protecting and nurturing Abraham; helping him to grow in God's grace. The work Abraham did in Chapter 22 is based upon the faith given by God in Chapter 15 that is based upon his calling by God in Chapter 12. So it is with each one of us. God calls, God gives faith, God prepares us for works all over our entire life times.
“Of course “men go to hell of their own accord.””
Then why are we contending whatsoever?
AG, thank you so much for the very kind words, and for the wonderful scripture. It's spot on, as always. Hallowed be His Name indeed! :)
LOLOL. “The Vienna Boys Choir?” LOL.
What change what value where, FK?
God ordains what will happen, including all changes in course. He also ordains the prayer that precedes those things. Many times we might experience this as God responding to our prayers by making a new decision to change course, (and it was planned that way all along). That is God's will. We know this to be true since God specifically tells us to bring our prayer requests to Him, while at the same time telling us that He already knows what they are. That wouldn't seem to make sense, so the consideration is what He wants our experience to be (and of course what glory it brings to God).
In Calvinist thinking, is creation distorted by sin?
Yes, I certainly think so. One example would be the physical deterioration of our bodies. I don't think that would have happened, but for sin. However, I would not take it so far as to say, for example, things like natural disasters are a result of man's sin. I see natural disasters as being the work of God's hand, for His own reasons. For example, the Bible is clear that God directly causes earthquakes (1 Kings 19:11-12, Is. 29:6, Eze. 38:19, Matt. 27:54 and 28:2, plus Revelation.)
Can one of the elect, by his very presence somewhere, change creation around him to its created state?
I doubt it, but I may not be fully following you.
Did Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross have any effect on creation aside from people?
In the macro sense I would probably again doubt it, but if you gave me an example it might help. :) Jesus didn't come here to eliminate sin from the world, He came to pay for the sins of the elect. In the macro sense, I suppose I can't think of how creation is all that different now compared to the time before Jesus came.
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.
And I will use my new will to thank you for the kind prayers and return the gesture by praying for you too. :)
But as to my analysis of God, I was just trying to draw a comparison of where God's priorities are under our respective faiths. Under Catholicism, is God's priority to save men? I think the clear answer has to be "no" because while He has the obvious power to do so, it is MORE important to Him to allow man to make his own decisions to his eternal salvation or destruction. Most fail which appears to clash with His will, so it is clear what is more important to God.
Under the Reformed view, God's priority IS to save His elect. He takes all the steps necessary to make absolutely certain that all of His children are saved. Not a single one is lost. What His children, who have no idea what is good for them at the time, think is irrelevant. God knows what is best and so He implements that.
The latter. The Bible tells us that God does not hear the "prayers" of the lost:
Isa 59:2 : But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.
Prov 15:29 : The Lord is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.
--------------------------
Surely, the “all knowing” brilliant, John Calvin must have addressed this too -:)
Of course! :) Here is what he says:
Section 7 - ...... One of the requisites of legitimate prayer is repentance. Hence the common declaration of Scripture, that God does not listen to the wicked; that their prayers, as well as their sacrifices, are an abomination to him. For it is right that those who seal up their hearts should find the ears of God closed against them, that those who, by their hardheartedness, provoke his severity should find him inflexible. In Isaiah he thus threatens: "When ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood" (Isa 1:15). In like manner, in Jeremiah, "Though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them" (Jer 11:7,8,11); because he regards it as the highest insult for the wicked to boast of his covenant while profaning his sacred name by their whole lives. Hence he complains in Isaiah: "This people draw near to me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me; but have removed their heart far from men" (Isa 29:13). Indeed, he does not confine this to prayers alone, but declares that he abominates pretense in every part of his service. ...... (from Calvin: Of Prayer.)
Do you have a mind of your own or is God making your choices? If God makes your choices, x, then your sins are also His choices.
I accept that a sect which calls itself Reformed may believe that, but that is not Christianity, at least not as the earliest Chruch understood it.
Great post, Mark! +Irenaeus perfeclty describes the deformed beliefs of the Reformed. They are closet Gnostics.
You are missing the point, Kosta.
It is possible for God to create a world in which all things are fixed and all people make their own choices.
Mark, this explains the Gnostic/Reformed/heretic hatred for +Irenaeus (Gnostic protagonist par excellence, Elaine Pagels makes that very clear in her attack on Isrenaeus's orthodoxy in her book the so-called Gosepl of Thomas).
They supply their claim with — who else but +Paul! Or, I should say, their version of +Paul. Just as the LDS defend their pagan cult with their version of scriptural interpretations.
The pattern is the same. All heretics invent their own "churches" and support their deformed belifs with scriptural deformations.
Maybe one day the Reformed will confess what seems so obvious: that they believe God controls our minds and makes our decisions. (He better, otherwise He isn't sovereign!)
If He does, as they believe by necessity (stuffing God into their own invented theology), that will be the end of our discussion, because these are then not our discussions, but rather God having and argument with Himself!
The other alternative is that God is not a control-freak, and permits man to be a free agent and make his free decisions. But that would be the end of the Reformed heresy.
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 choreographed whether you pray or not. Nothing you do in that movie theater will change the end of that movie. ......
Well, if the only purpose of prayer was to change God's mind and get stuff, then I would agree with you completely. It continues to baffle me that this is the Apostolic view. We happen to think that prayer is so much more than getting stuff. Since I was just in there on another post, here is what Calvin says:
Section 3 --- But some one will say, Does he not know without a monitor both what our difficulties are, and what is meet for our interest, so that it seems in some measure superfluous to solicit him by our prayers, as if he were winking, or even sleeping, until aroused by the sound of our voice? Those who argue thus attend not to the end for which the Lord taught us to pray. It was not so much for his sake as for ours. ......
It will be sufficient to refer to the example of Elijah, who being assured of the purpose of God had good ground for the promise of rain which he gives to Ahab, and yet prays anxiously upon his knees, and sends his servant seven times to inquire (1 Kings 18:42); not that he discredits the oracle, but because he knows it to be his duty to lay his desires before God, lest his faith should become drowsy or torpid. Wherefore, although it is true that while we are listless or insensible to our wretchedness, he wakes and watches for use and sometimes even assists us unasked; it is very much for our interest to be constantly supplicating him;
[continuing:] first, that our heart may always be inflamed with a serious and ardent desire of seeking, loving and serving him, while we accustom ourselves to have recourse to him as a sacred anchor in every necessity; secondly, that no desires, no longing whatever, of which we are ashamed to make him the witness, may enter our minds, while we learn to place all our wishes in his sight, and thus pour out our heart before him; and, lastly, that we may be prepared to receive all his benefits with true gratitude and thanksgiving, while our prayers remind us that they proceed from his hand. Moreover, having obtained what we asked, being persuaded that he has answered our prayers, we are led to long more earnestly for his favour, and at the same time have greater pleasure in welcoming the blessings which we perceive to have been obtained by our prayers.
...... It is very absurd, therefore, to dissuade men from prayer, by pretending that Divine Providence, which is always watching over the government of the universes is in vain importuned by our supplications, when, on the contrary, the Lord himself declares, that he is "nigh unto all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth (Ps 145:18). No better is the frivolous allegation of others, that it is superfluous to pray for things which the Lord is ready of his own accord to bestow; since it is his pleasure that those very things which flow from his spontaneous liberality should be acknowledged as conceded to our prayers. This is testified by that memorable sentence in the psalms to which many others corresponds: "The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry" (Ps 34:15). ...... (from Calvin: Of Prayer.) (emphasis added)
Prayer is obviously not useless in ANY sense to us.
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.
Yep, I'd hate to be boxed into definitional perfection just like ol' God is. That would be a real mess. Of course you are right that God should be able to correct His own errors. After all, He's only ...... :)
The Protestats miss the point, x, that man's free choices somehow affect God's Plan. They affect our destiny. The choices we make affect whether we come to God or whether we go to hell. They don't affect God.
If we give in to evil, we will perish. If we give in to our Lord Jesus Christ and persevere, He will save us in the end. It's that simple.
God does not make our chocies, but He knows how we all will end up. Foreknowledge and predestination are not one and the same. He did not preordain our chocies. But He foreknew them from all eternity.
That's the meaning of prayer in the languages of the Bible: asking for mercy, a divine favor. Again, you are confusing prayer with worship (giving praise, adoration), although adoration usually preceeds prayer.
It continues to baffle me that this is the Apostolic view
The Apostolic view what Christ taught. He gave us the Lord's Prayer which starts giving God praise and then asking for Him for essential mercies: bread, forgiveness, protection from the evil one.
Prayer is an appeal to God.
If God is the "chief decider" of what we do then our prayers are not our prayers but mechanical repetitions ordianed by God, and we are mindless robots powered by God. Reformed theology 101.
If God’s plan is determined by human choices then God has no plan.
God’s plan will go forward and be completed just as prophesied.
Your choices were free AND known prior to the creation of this world. We will call it the WorldGodSelected.
At the creation, the WorldGodSelected was set in motion.
It is now heading toward its end. Within it all choices are free AND it will not deviate in its destination.
Our desitnies are affected by our choices. Not God's plan. God'splan is to save those who come to Him. His sacrifice on the cross made that possible for all.
It is now heading toward its end. Within it all choices are free AND it will not deviate in its destination
This world will end as we know it and everyone in it shall die. What happens to our souls is up to God and He tells us that some will be saved and others will perish. Tose who perish will perish because of their refusal to repent. Not because God wants them to perish.
Old R: And Perpetual Virginity? And the Bodily Assumption of Mary? And the Trinity?
And "sola scriptura?" Where is the "sola scriptura" in the scriptura?
Unitarian? Theophilus Lindley founded this "church" in London in 1774. (see my post #7). Another man-made "church" based on "sola."
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.