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.
They are simply going back to the source, the core understanding of the orthodox faith of the early Church.
I'm not sure what Orthodox scholars had to say on this 2,000 years ago, but it was certainly never the teaching of the early western fathers
That was the teaching of the Church, east and west, in the first millennium, and it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church to this day. It reflects the understanding of atonement from the beginning.
What the West, particularly the Protestant West, teaches today is the 11th century Anselm's juridical atonement flavored with select Augustinian hypotheses.
Very well said, Mark.
“That was the teaching of the Church, east and west, in the first millennium, and it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church to this day. It reflects the understanding of atonement from the beginning.”
Here’s a link to a foundational, 4th century work of The Church which explains quite well why the Logos became man; long read, but I recommend it to our Protestant brethren. Holy Orthodoxy still teaches and believes this.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.vii.ii.i.html
Xzins: With this you acknowledge that the Passover Lamb was interecessory. And it is a fact that the Lamb offered as a guilt offering was also intercessory.
The blood of the lamb was not intercessory. It was a marker for those households that were to be spared the divine wrath that broke Pharaoh's resistance and allowed Hebrews to leave.
There is nothing in the story of Exodus to show that the blood of the lamb was intercessory. It was an element of rich Jewish imagination and colorful folklore that God somehow "needed" markers in order to know which household to spare.
God knows what we think, what we feel, and doesn't need visible markers. But, assuming this is what God wanted, the death of the lamb provided the blood that gave God the marker which saved Hebrew households. In that sense it was as "salvific" and "intercessory" as a bar-coded sticker on your car will let you through a toll booth.
He interceded for us through His shed blood. And the blood of the Passover Lamb was on the doorpost & lintel as intercession
Yes Jesus did intercede on our behalf, but dying on the cross: His death in exchange for everyone else's life. He paid the ransom. The price was His life. He said in effect "let them go, you can have me." This is not even close to the Passover lamb's issue.
The lamb did not assume the sins (there is no such concept as "escapelamb"), nor did it die because of Israel's sin, nor did its death serve as a substitute for Pharaoh's detention of the Hebrews. The lamb was not offered in exchange for the Hebrews' freedom, the way Christ offered His life in exchange for ours. There is simply no comparison to the Passover lamb and its blood, physically or symbolically, even spiritually.
The similarity rests in the end result, which was God's deliverance from captivity (in the Hebrew case physically, and in Christ's case of death holding us captive).
Those who feast on the sacrifice participate in the sacrifice. They are feasting on the intercession & they proclaim HIS DEATH until he comes
No, those who receive the Eucharistic Gifts do so that they may live. The Eucharist is manna that came from heaven (cf St. John 6:51). It's all about life.
We do proclaim His death along with His Resurrection: death to life. He is the God of the living (cf Mat 22:32).
Bingo! Yet, the Protestants will tell you that we can repent only because God gives us repentance (as in giving money to someone to spend...those who don't get it can't repent). Thus the Protestant God withholds repentance for some (yet He is not partial!).
In other words, HD, you will tell me that you can repent only if He has already decided to forgive you; now He just wants you to go through the charade. Puppets on a string. Some "children."
Your welcome and thank you.
Please take it to heart when you pray and see if the LORD guides you.
Your welcome my FRiend.
FWIW, these threads can get pretty heated and things get posted that won't be said in polite company, but if you really want to mature as a Christian you need the confidence to know the answer is in Scripture and where to find it.
I shall make no attempt to reconcile the tenets you (or your confession) hold to the revelations of God, in particular His revelation in Scripture. That task falls to your own theologians – or you.
Because I personally eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men across the board, everything I present here is the Truth as I have received it (so far) from the revelations of God the Father in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in Scripture and in Creation both spiritual and physical.
I am a Christian, plain and simple. If you should find my posts agree with doctrines and traditions you hold, then I rejoice.
Praise God!!!
Again, unwittingly you demonstrate that the blood came between the inhabitants of the house and the death angel and prevented the death sentence from visiting the house covered by blood.
Intercede: come between on behalf of.
It is intercessory, and it's not to be argued. It's simply a fact.
The lamb WAS sacrificed for the life of the inhabitants of that house. This is so clear. I wonder that you even discuss it.
The answer is in Scripture; but one must ask the right questions.
Yes, what God gives with one hand, he takes away with the other, according to the "reformed" theology. In the rush to claim God as sovereign, they override HIS perogative to share Himself with mankind. Sad...
Regards
Two points to make here. One, methods of baptism and their respective validity may be the hottest topic, but it's not the only topic. Eschatological beliefs vary widely, even among members of the same denomination, and the arguments that follow can get extremely heated. That no denomination has yet split along such lines, in my opinion, is only a matter of time.
Two, the issue of baptism is no small issue, even among the so called Reformed. Back in the day, when I was arguing with such people about matters of eschatology [*ehem*], I had the good pleasure of a Baptist gentleman informing me, in a most candid manner, that my Presbyterian baptism was of absolutely no value whatsoever. Suffice it to say, he felt rather strongly about his position. And from what I've seen so far, these two groups are in no danger of reconciliation.
In short, to say that Baptists and Presbyterians (/whoever) are only in schism over modes of baptism is not entirely unlike saying that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are only in schism over the filioque.
AMEN! Outstanding post, Dr. E. Separating foreknowledge and predestination turns God into a plagiarizer. First God looks into His crystal ball to see who will accept Him (He cheats by looking at the answer sheet). Then He declares "I hereby predestine ..." as if He made the decision, when of course the decision was made by the free will of man. Where does God get off taking credit for the work of others? I smell lawsuit here. :)
And this incorrect interpretation of Scripture was one of the prime motivations for the Reformation.
In the first part of your statement, you have the devil orchestrating the crucifixion and thus the resurrection, in total contrast to what Scripture tells us -- that God ordained the death and resurrection of Christ in order to redeem His sheep as the only propitiation equal to the offense. Your rendition sounds more like "Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf."
"Christ gave His life to the devil..."
To the devil??? So the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" was sacrificed to the devil??? Was the Pascal lamb sacrificed to the devil? No, it was not.
How much power do you imagine this old Beelzebub possesses? Not one speck more than God has given Him. And over God's children, He ultimately has none.
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." -- Romans 6:8-9"Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Death has no dominion over us because we have faith in Christ and His resurrection. And what does that faith tell us?
It tells us that Christ on the cross did not merely give men a "chance to be redeemed," but He actually redeemed them by paying for their sins once for all time.
If Christ died for nothing more than an opportunity to be saved, a chance at salvation, then he actually died on the cross for no one. No one was saved on Calvary.
Indulgences and purgatory and the rampaging blood thirst of Rome are given by the RCC as the reasons for the "rebellious" Reformation.
Those were part of it, certainly. But at the very heart of the Reformation was the re-establishing of the Scriptural understanding of Justification -- a man is saved by Christ having taken on the punishment rightly due the sinner in order for that man to be acquitted of his sins and thus to stand blameless before God.
Calvin said "Justification by faith in Christ alone is the hinge of the Reformation," and so it was and is to this day.
"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" -- 1 Corinthians 1:30
It's all about Christ. It always was and always will be. He did it for us. With men it's impossible; not so with God because "it is God that justifieth" (Romans 8:33).
Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared... A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ..."...The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life...
Calvin didn't invent the judicial order of God's creation. God did when He told Adam not to sin, and Adam transgressed and paid the penalty for that transgression.
Thank God, Christ came and took upon Himself the penalty for all those who are, by the unmerited grace of God alone, given to Him by God and thus, numbered among His sheep.
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Exactly. The lamb had to be killed in order for the blood to be used as a covering for the door. It was the blood of the lamb that turned away the wrath of God.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Ephesians 1:7 KJV)
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 John 1:7 KJV)
It may not be as simple as I've portrayed, but it is surely accurate.
It fascinates me first, that someone would think the Passover Lamb to be about thanksgiving; and second, that they would deny it to be intercessory.
And thirdly, that they’d even care to debate it one way or the other if they didn’t think it actually happened.
Except yours of course. :)
I'll rephrase without reference to Christian Doctrines: Does your personal revelation hold that God is One and eternal, without beginning, without end, everlasting?
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.