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.
Again this can apply literally to believing children [ despise not one of these little ones ]
So Jesus is saying it's ok to despise non-believing children? At what age?
Except ye be converted, and become as little children..
Is Jesus saying the little one is converted or that the converted become as little children?
What do you expect from anyone who thinks everything is predetermined
They believe that God predetermines everything , even those who use their faith to Praise Him is predetermined...In other words it is not our free wills that Pray and Praise God,since we have no free will it would have to be God Praising Himself.
We are just empty shells along for the ride.
I wonder if this stuff ever runs through their minds? Then again, we don't need a mind because everything has been predetermined anyway ;-)
Oh well!
I will just keep praying for them. Prayer moves hearts far better than words anyway!
FK to DF: We believe that God is immutable and unchanging. But that does not mean God must be a static being.
DF to FK: I think you are confusing this with the immaterial energies of the Holy Trinity or Godhead.
We are dealing with concepts that boggle the mind. The mystery of God reveals that He is unaffected by time, and time is needed for change, ergo He is changeless. Gospels tell us that God is love. How does love, which doesn't change, become hate without ceasing to be love unless it is in the eyes of the beholder? It is our disposition towards God that determines if we experience His love as love or as hate.
Rag dolls in my book.
That's right: challenge. That doesn't mean we stay in His light. If it were a done deal it wouldn't be a challenge.
Truly, every good thing (fruit, works) that comes from our lives after we have been reborn in Him, is His doing and to His glory, not ours
People do it because they want rewards. they want eternal life, they want to be saved, and acceptable to God. Take out the promise of eternal life and see how many people do anything in His name, or how many people come to church to praise Him for nothing more than His glory.
The motive is what counts. Only those who love God for no reason whatsoever and expect nothing from Him, are the one who love Him truly. I have ten fingers on my hand too many to count those.
With respect, I cannot find such a posting.
Would you be able to provide evidence of this?
Well, I can't possibly top Dr. E. quoting Harley quoting Calvin. That's something you just don't do. :)
Regarding salvation, it depends on your definition of salvation. Are you referring to that past event where you first accepted our Lord as your Savior and repented of your sins? Because we have not yet received the other kind of salvation, our entrance into heaven, which is not yet secured. It is based on hope (and OUR perseverance in Christ!)
Yes, that is what I was referring to, but your use is proper also. We of course disagree on whether salvation can be secured during physical life. I would just add that the Biblical use of the word "hope" includes confidence and surety.
It's more than that, because you admit that we have been given the ability to obey. This cannot happen unless the man is ALSO involved. It cannot be said that we obey anything if God does it all. We certainly cannot take credit for anything, whether natural or supernatural gifts.
I agree with you and Augustine that we are returning the gifts God has given us. It could just be a matter of semantics over what "involved" means. After salvation, we are free to act out God's will, but it must also be in accordance with God's exact plan (which we cannot know). So in that sense we are certainly "involved". We want to obey and God directs how that happens.
So, rather than that, how about you tell me how the different versions of the KJV came to be, other than modern usage.
I think that God is beyond emotions as we understand them.
I’d just hang on to the idea that He created us as the pinnacle of His creation in order to have us love and worship Him. Other than that, He is far above me.
LOL. If I might add --
Well, I can't possibly top Dr. E. quoting Harley quoting Calvin quoting Scripture... 8~)
You may or may not be interested in the idea that man indeed has free will. You may or may not be interested in the idea that man has responsibility for his everlasting destination.
You may have reason to furiously defend the robot slave theory, but I suspect that it is because you believe that you are one of the elitist elect and none of the rest of us can get into your undeserved club.
Are you saying that God is like a sports fan? Do you have Scriptural evidence of this?
I do not know if God will accept me into Heaven; the Lord knows that I hope and that I am doing what I can. I don’t have indwelling knowledge, or a get out of hell free card.
I don’t think that they exist.
We may yet bring the Calvinists to Heaven.
When Jesus Ascended, all efforts of the Church were man-made.
God gave His authority to the Church; rather than the whims of individuals.
It's an hyperbole. A figure of speech. But I repeat myself.
Let's see the context of the verse...
If you are sincerely interested in context, you need to at least start at verse 9. That's where Paul starts this particular line of thinking, and what he says from that point sets the tone for the verses in question. Better yet, just read chapter 12 in it's entirety. But if not, at least go back to verse 9.
9) Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.
10) Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
11) not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
12) rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;
13) distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
14) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15) Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
16) Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
17) Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
18) If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
19) Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance in Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
20) Therefore
21) Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Now, if you are determined to believe that the quoted proverb in verse 20 was intended to emphasis God's wrath on your enemy, as mentioned in 19, then a link between 19 and 20 will appear plain as day. But if you were to interpret the proverb as I do, that benevolence can break the cycle of violence, then the link simply isn't there. In other words, the link you point out between 19 and 20 only appears to be there because you interpret the heaping of coals to be an act of hostility. Since you need to prove your interpretation to prove the link, you can't use the link to prove your interpretation; circular reasoning.
So, this is where the other verses come in handy. We can look at the tone of the message Paul is sending. He say be good to each other; be good like this; be good like that. Be good and let God handle the enemy. Your interpretation has Paul advising them to be good to their enemy so their enemy will suffer. That's disturbing. I think you mistake Paul for Poe (as in Edgar Allan). Verse 14 says "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." But you insist that Paul turns around 180 degrees and tells us to do 'good' so as to bring a curse on the enemy's head.
And He most certainly will -- by "heaping holes of fire on their heads."
Sounds like a curse alright.
Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a verse so misunderstood as your take on this one.
Should I be surprised?
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.
Yes and no, but another subject for another day.
Remind me never to tell you I'm feeling a little chilly. 8~)
Apparently, if I were still a member of the PCA, your fears might be justified. :P
As God wills it
;)
As explained by the verse in context, "coals of fire" further distinguishes God's children from those not numbered among His family, those who are enemies of His children and thus, enemies of Him.
As 1000silverlings wrote: "Indeed, the Greek for "burning coals" is our English word anthrax, so might be whence comes our saying "a pox upon him",lol. At any rate I think the burning coals are meant to represent God's wrath."
Amen.
But, hey, if you want to think tossing burning coals of fire on someone's head is an act of kindness in order to keep them warm and toasty, that's your campfire prerogative.
“Your interpretation has Paul advising them to be good to their enemy so their enemy will suffer. That’s disturbing.”
Jesus said: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:43–44).
Jesus is saying the best way to destroy an enemy is to befriend him, make him a brother. The Paul gives this instruction: “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” (Rom. 12:20). So, the best way to get rid of an enemy is to make him your friend, your brother.
This is why Jesus added: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?” (Matt. 5:44–46).
Paul’s “coals of fire” are shame, that causes an enemy to burn as David states: Psa 83:14 “As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire; So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.”
In the seeking the Lord because of the shame caused by meeting their needs, they can become brothers in the Lord. It is not a sentimental emotion of love, it is Elisha leading the blind Syrian Army into the presence of the king where they could be killed and instead feeding them and sending them home well and they become friends and don’t invade again until the deed is forgotten. 2 Kings 6:13-22.
Shame, is a tool, it is leaving it to the Lord to do His will, but it is a product of recognizing evil in the presence of good deeds.
The motive is what counts. Only those who love God for no reason whatsoever and expect nothing from Him, are the one who love Him truly. I have ten fingers on my hand too many to count those.
You are in for a big surprise. God wrote the names of His family for the next heaven and earth from the foundation of this world --- and every one of us loves Him surpassingly above all else, including our neighbors - and ourselves. (Rev 20)
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matt 22:37-40
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.