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.
Peter only had to say it once :) (Matt.14:30)
***I cannot say that you are saved; I cannot say that you are not saved. Neither can any man about any other men.***
Then why did you say it to me earlier on? When we got admonished by the Moderator, you had already declared my going straight to hell because I did not believe as you did.
To the contrary, dear Aamo-Girl. The NT is full of verses that show judgment is reserved for the good deeds as well as the bad. In fact, there is even one that says the believers are not judged (cf John 3:18) , which is contrary to Hebrews that every man is judged upon his death (cf Heb 9:27).
St. Paul (cf 2 Cor 5:10) says that each man will be "recompensed" according to "what he has done, whether good or bad." (my emphasis).
Certainly you don't mean to imply that God does bad things through us, do you? Judgment is reserved for everyone (except for the anonymous author of John 3:18), for the good and for the evil. The Bible is also in agreement that evil deeds we (all) commit bring judgment upon us. And it ain't "rewards."
Our judgment is also not immune from our works, for what we do is judged: "And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things" [Rom 2:2]
St. James reminds us (2:13) "For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment."
And we are reminded that the judgment is reserved for "a pit of darkness" (cf 2 Pet 2:4), and certainly not for rewards.
In fact, 2 Pet 3;7 further states that the heavens and the earth are being reserved "for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
So, when the Bible says we will be judged according to our deeds, dear Alamo-Girl, that is contrary to Protestants' cozy belief that they are off the hook.
Um...you may wish to look at Augustine's later works.
I'm really not interested in what the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages had to say no matter how "attractive" it was. By then the Church's doctrine was corrupted beyond repair. Many of these men were caught up in Renaissance gibberish of the day with man the center of attention and free will the focus. Man was the captain of their souls. Their church doctrine was corrupted by their philosophical views. They simply disregarded clear text like "elect", "chosen", and "predestined" to remake God in their image. They ignored the entire story of Israel being the "chosen" race. The semi-Pelagius view that fester in the Church for over a thousand year found root and flourished.
Unfortunately for the Church, God raised up Luther, Calvin and a few others to keep His remnant on track. He provided the scriptures to all men so that man may have His divine word, not given in piece meal as the Church was prone to do.
Yes, most people today (Protestants included) believe in the free will of man. They are wrong. It is a denial of God's gift of faith to us. It is a denial that all souls belong to God and He can do with them what He wishes.
50 K!!! Wow, I’m impressed. I’m lucky if I can make it to the mailbox. :O)
May God bless you on your journey.
Yes, in the same sense that the Cardinals are not "doing my will" when they win ball games. When we are lost we do not have the capacity to do God's will, or please Him. There is no obedience, so there can be no "good". Now, in a separate sense, when Judas betrayed Jesus (for example) it was "consistent" with what God wanted to happen, but Judas did not "do" God's will.
Also, could you differentiate between ‘believer’ and ‘elect’ for me please? I’m getting lost in the translation.
Since I do not believe that a true believer can lose his salvation, I think that a true believer is the same as an elect. The Bible tells us that there are both true believers (those who have received Christ in fact) and false believers (those who claim to have done so but have not). We have the ability to know if we are among the true believers, but we cannot be absolutely certain about anyone else. One of my exceedingly rare liberal traits is to always give the benefit of the doubt to one who professes, until I have solid evidence to the contrary. :) That's why, while I may have profound disagreement with the FR Apostolics that I know, I do not question their Christianity.
It is if you like being warm at night. Consider, for a moment, that this proverb dates back to a time when keeping warm typically involved lighting something on fire. So, figuratively speaking, you toss coals on someone's head, you warm them up. And that is a good thing. You repay your enemy with kindness and God rewards you for your act of charity.
In Romans 12:9-21, Paul makes the point that we should be consistently good and, in keeping with that, not return evil with evil but with good. The idea that this action (re: coals) will cause harm to the person is inconsistent with the rest of what was said.
In any case, whatever Paul preaches, it must be consistent with this:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."
(Matthew 5:43-48, NKJV)
I can't speak to your predestination, but if you remain in these threads for any length of time, that's pretty much what you have to look forward to. On the upside, it's great exercise. Abeit, in futility, but still. :)
Oh. Interesting.
I was sorta wondering if it wasn’t like the old proverb:
“Love your enemies. It irritates the hell out of them”
***One of my exceedingly rare liberal traits is to always give the benefit of the doubt to one who professes, until I have solid evidence to the contrary. :) That’s why, while I may have profound disagreement with the FR Apostolics that I know, I do not question their Christianity.***
I agree, however I do not think of it as a liberal trait. I think of it as knowing that I do not know nearly as much as God.
Earlier I quoted from Heb 12:7-11, and the idea is that the punishment can be in the form of what we normally call "hardship". This can take any form and be directly from God. That does not mean that all hardship is punishment, but only that hardship is a means of punishment that God uses. Examples are very straightforward: loss of job, loss of physical health, depression, loss of friendships, loss of material possessions, and a million other examples. The hardships (except for physical death) are tailor made to bring us back to Him. When I quoted from Hebrews 12 I SHOULD have included the preceding two verses:
Heb 12:5-6 : 5 And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6 because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."
I have used "punishment" and "discipline" interchangeably, but the point is that it is for our own good. We are men, so we are going to mess up. As always, God turns a negative into a positive through His discipline. I believe this is part of what James was talking about when he said:
James 1:2-4 : 2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4 Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
Just because they decided to replace Judas does not mean ipso facto that they had the authority to do so. What is an Apostle? The word means "one who is sent". Sent by whom? By God, of course. So it was God who had the only authority, not the Apostles. They "could" have made a mistake, that is unclear. The 11 chose to roll the dice. God either blessed (caused) the result or He did not. But whether the 12th Apostle was Matthias or Paul (or anyone else) was SOLELY within God's authority, not man's.
Good reply, monkfan. I have wondered about her interpretation of the coals even though it is glaringly inconsistent with the rest, but then literalist interpretations lead to such dead-end concusions.
And what about the rabbis and their vowells? Do you just shrug your shoulder when reading the OT and say "sorry they failed?" but keep reading it as if it were unaltered by human hands? My guess is you do. My guess is you read the NT and treat it as something pristine as well. Like I said, some people would rather pretend the sun doesn't shine by sticking their head in the sand.
By what "church?" And whose doctrine is that anyway? Paul's? or, rather, Protestant deformation of Paul's teaching?
People relying upon their own works will have a very sad awakening
The Jews simply believe that by living a decent life we make ourselves acceptable to God. On the other hand you'd give an LDS a right of passage no matter whay kind of a life he leads simply because he calls on Jesus.
Whatever good (fruit, works) comes from our lives after we have been reborn in Him, is His doing and to His glory, not ours.
For those who are, punishments and condemnations do not await, only rewards and crowns. Our works may be burned, we may be heavenly paupers - but we will be saved.
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, - I Th 5:9
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. - Romans 8:1
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. – Psalms 23:4
My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. – John 10:29
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39
For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Tim 1:12
[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. – Hebrews 13:5
Excellent post, MHG. I feel the same way. I instinctively believe it had to be Paul, but I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And Paul much better fits the definition of the meaning of the word "Apostle" from what we are told in scripture. For a related comment, see 6,293.
That drawing of lots without waiting until the Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost reminds me so much of the pow wow Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar had in their impatience to fulufill what God had promised He would do. It’s also a lot like a board of decons meeting don’tchaknow!
Consider, for a moment, that this proverb dates back to a time when keeping warm typically involved lighting something on fire.
Lighting some thing on fire, not someone.
So, figuratively speaking, you toss coals on someone's head, you warm them up. And that is a good thing.
LOL. Wow. I think you've really missed the point of this verse if you think pouring "coals of fire" on someone's head is an act of kindness.
Let's see the context of the verse...
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." -- Romans 12:19-21"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Paul is saying retribution is God's domain and not ours. And because all things work for the good of those who love Him, God's retribution will make even more evident the depths of the sin of our persecutors by comparison.
By repaying our enemies with kindness, we show God we trust Him to deal with law-breakers.
And He most certainly will -- by "heaping holes of fire on their heads."
Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a verse so misunderstood as your take on this one.
Of course I guess if you insist on thinking God loves everyone, then floods, pestilence, disease and destruction are all divine love tokens, too, and not a result of God's wrath.
Remind me never to tell you I'm feeling a little chilly. 8~)
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.