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.
Well, you have a point here. Maybe it's because it's difficult to see any progress with atheists, while there can and has been maturation among Christians to better understand God's will and His word. I know I have grown a lot in my understanding thanks to these discussions.
Hopefully, these threads on the RF, by strengthening our own faith, equip us better to engage with non-believers in the real world.
The spirit of anti-Christ is running amok in today's society as we can see from the myriad articles posted on the News Forum – and yet the most faithful tend to congregate and exhort and/or encourage one another.
As a Postmil, I believe it is incumbent on all believers to preach loudly and to all men.
But those atheist guys scare me. 8~)
"For the time is at hand."
Very true, but when has it not been?
Well when the Logos is redefined as the virgin Mary, you got a fundamental error
As faithful as they may have been how do you know if they were good students and got it right?
These words begin this thread. Protestant churches consider Christ the firstborn of all creatures. The Protestant churches are those named in Hebrews 12:23
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
If you claim another taking precedence before Christ, you have another church. The leaders of a church that worships someone besides Christ can make all the claims they want to, their claims mean nothing to those who do worship Jesus Christ. They may draw all the circles they want and call those without heretics and sinners, but having no authority under heaven, they are, as God says, dry clouds without water, worthless.
Very true. Arminius was a student of Calvin, and look where he took it. 8~)
Such language is strange to me, because my definition of "saved" refers to final salvation in heaven. I have already given you 2 Peter 2 and his take on it being better to never have been 'saved' in the first place if it means learning about Christ and subsequently falling away. Jesus tells a similar story regarding the one demon cast out, and then returning with seven more demons...
Your idea of 'being saved' is not the same as final salvation. As such, your definition doesn't make sense to me.
Scripture tells us it's the Holy Spirit who renews our mind. If the Holy Spirit renews a man's mind, then does the Holy Spirit renew some men's minds more than other men's minds? Again, I have already offered you Scriptures that can be understood that the Spirit can and does "gift" some more than others. For example, the parable of the talents, you will note that some have received more. God gives ALL of us particular and unequal shares of Himself. All of them separately are sufficient for us. God does not "short-change" ANYONE so that they cannot later say "God, you didn't give me enough graces". As you have already admitted, God gives ALL men sufficient graces. They become "effective" as a result of the fruit that results. How much the "soil" matters in the production of this fruit is beyond me. But it is certainly Scriptural to expect men to respond to God - and those who do not are in trouble of facing eternity without God.
Regards
Dr. E: You don't have to take Alamo-Girl's word for it. Einstein said it. Parallel lines will eventually intersect because the universe is curved....Two lines moving in the same direction on a plane will never meet at a finite set of coordinates. However, suppose that two people start at the Equator and head north. They are traveling in the same direction, but since they are on a sphere, they do meet!
You guys are killing me with your definitions and unfortunately misleading occasional lurkers.
First, two parallel lines moving in the same direction along the equator or any point in the east-west direction will remain parallel and will never meet even though they move on a curved surface.
Moving in the north-south direction, two parallel lines also always parallel unless you introduce convergence at a specific point (i.e. a pole).
Einstein's theory is presuming that the lines are converging towards a pole (which is not a absolute condition, for one can slice a sphere into parallel slices; convergence exists only if there is a presumption of a meeting point—a pole. Once you have a single point of convergence the lines are no longer parallel, by definition: parallel means equidistant, and equidistant is mutually exclusive with respect to convergent. Once you introduce convergence, the lines are no longer parallel (their point of convergence can be assessed theoretically as a tangent of the angle of convergence if the separaton at the starting point is known).
Alamo-Girl and you are introducing a special case where lines are converging towards a pole, by introducing curvature and polarity into space. Neither of these conditions is necessarily true of absolute. But under your conditions the lines are converging and not parallel (i.e. equidistant over distance). They can be equidistant only at a given point.
What Alamo-Girl didn't tell us is that Einstien basically said that parallel lines were only a relative observer's phenomenon and that, in space, there are no true parallel lines; only convergent ones. In other words, Einstein postulated that parallel is a mathematical (ideal) condition that doesn't exist , except in Eucledian geometry. He postulated that the reality is not "flat" but curved and polar (i.e. that there is a common center to the universe towards all object will eventually fall).
Most recent cosmological evidence suggests that Einstein was wrong (in fact, all cosmological theories are wrong—because they are all man-made working models). The universe is actually expanding and not contracting or even slowing down. So, chances are that the universe is not polar (i.e. without a gravitational "center"), and therefore all lines defining the space are not necessarily convergent.
Any serious reading of Scripture debunks the "theory of Apostolic Succession".
1. Mathias disappears from Scripture after being picked to replace Judas Iscariot.
2. Paul is hand picked by Jesus.
3. The apostles thought of themselves as elders and missionaries. They did not place themselves above all others.
4. Early on Christian churches picked their leaders from their elders, who exhibited the gifts of the Holy Spirit and lived lives that conformed to Scripture.
5. The church leaders that followed the Apostles were not granted supernatural powers.
6. The historic lineage of this claimed "Apostolic Succession" has gaps and has periods where more than one claimed the authority of the same office.
7. Those claiming the highest office of this claimed "Apostolic Succession" have committed some of the worst persecutions of Christians in history.
As long as the RCC has been separated from the power of the State I rejoice when they make these claims. Let everyone know who you are and what you believe. I will be happy to stand with those from the RCC that are saved and worship GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT in heaven. The more their beliefs are made public the greater the opportunity to present their Scriptural error.
Great point. Error can be found anywhere. It is very clear the Bereans had it right. Everything has to be looked at through Scripture.
It can be argued that the more Christians stray from what could be seen as the most important truth found in Scripture -- that Jesus Christ's justification of His flock was and is total, complete and unmerited, and made known to us by God's grace through faith according to the work of the Holy Spirit -- the more atheists are emboldened.
If Christians are undecided about how and even if they have been saved, then we become easy pickings for every foul wind that blows.
And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God." -- Philippians 1:27-28"Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;
Who wrongly thinks our confidence is "presumption?"
"Stand fast." Isn't that a great phrase? And how does Paul say we are to "stand fast?" By speaking the Gospel of Christ."
"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." -- 1 Corinthians 16:13
And this verse led me to the rest of 1 Corinthians which concludes with the only "anathema" that means anything in this life...
"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." -- 1 Corinthians 16:22
Be sure to hold their feet to the fire and know just who they claim the Holy Trinity is. If Jesus does not have the pre-eminence in all things, and Mary is the first-born of all creatures as one of the popes asserted, speaking infallibly to the whole church, then they are not of the church of Jesus Christ. You would be unequally yoked with such, and have nothing in common.
I think logically. The term "parallel lines" has a definition. If this definition is violated, it no longer IS a parallel line that we are discussing, but something else. If you have a triangle, and add another side to it, does it remain a triangle? Such speculations is nonsense to my mind. Parallel lines that intersect are not parallel lines anymore.
And at WHICH point would these "parallel lines" intersect at? If you distinguish between two points in infinity, you have destroyed the definition of eternity! As you note elsewhere, and perhaps do not realize it, the “Line at Infinity” is the straight line on which all “Points at Infinity” lie. I agree, and have said as such. ALL points on an infinite line are the same. Thus, if you distinguish between two points, say one that intersection occurs and one point where intersection does NOT occur at, you have distinguished and ruined your definition.
I wrote: My point is that God is not subject to time. Thus, the idea that "eternity is time without end" is an incorrect definition.
You replied: The second statement does not follow from the first. Of course God is not subject to time or space. He created them! His Name is I AM. That is why I aver that “timeless” is a better adjective than “eternal” when speaking of God the Creator of “all that there is” whether spiritual or physical - including time!
You seem to contradict yourself. First, you say that eternity is "time without end", which I say is incorrect, then you talk about "timeless as being a better adjective. Are you still in the midst of thinking out loud and trying to determine your point of view?
"Timelessness" means no time. Not "time without end". "Eternity" does NOT have a beginning. "Time without end" DOES! Thus, you are incorrect, as I have said before. Eternity and time without end are not the same thing.
Infinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real number
I disagree. Infinity has no "quantity" because there is no distinction. Minimum and maximum are IDENTICAL! There is absolutely NO distinction in infinity. You have already admitted as such when you say "all points on an infinite line are the same". Infinity is not "one plus the last number"!
Eternity is not “no time” or “timelessness” it is “time without end” – or as the Epistle of Barnabas put it, a time of not counting.
I have already addressed this error. "time without end" is only projected in one direction. Eternity is without end in EITHER direction. Thus, there is no future or past in eternity. In "time without end", we realize that time has a starting point, but without end. That is TWO DIFFERENT things, A-G. I suggest you read Nicholas of Cusa and "On Learned Ignorance"
If it were “no time” or “timelessness” then it would be the ex nihilo - void, null, empty – which preceded God’s Creation of “all that there is” – both spiritual and physical.
That is revelation. "Before" God created time, there was nothing. We believe God created from nothing.
The Father is not begotten. Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father. The Spirit is from the Father by the Son.
"the Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father THROUGH the Son". The Father is the principle of the Spirit. Kosta, anything to add? Otherwise, you have expressed the catholic/orthodox trinitarian belief.
Regards
As the members of this sect learn what their church believes they will either embrace it, or reject it. My unity is with those that embrace the gospel, regardless of the sect they are in, and it is those fellow brothers and sisters in CHRIST I look forward to being yoked with.
The fishin’ is just lousy today...
You make a good point. However, if someone is a member of the RCC and truly places their Faith Alone in JESUS CHRIST do they have to leave? We have fellow Christians in the Episcopal church who are trying to get it to change, do they need to leave?
I think sometimes the LORD leaves them there for a reason. I really believe anybody can be redeemed.
Excellent post. Great facts.
Thank you
"the Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father THROUGH the Son". The Father is the principle of the Spirit. Kosta, anything to add? Otherwise, you have expressed the catholic/orthodox trinitarian belief
Insofar as I know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches only one source, the Father, for everything and all, including divnity, and the Latins do not subscribe to double procession, I have no objection.
As regards His existence the Spirit proceeds form the Faher alone. As regards the Divine Economy of our salvation, the Spirit is sent through the Son.
As St. John of Damascus (8th c.) says:
Insofar as A-G's statement "The Spirit is from the Father by the Son" makes the Son a necessary co-element in Spirit's procession, which is not the Trinitarian belief.
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.