Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

“I thought you believe that God loves everyone and that all are His children.”

Yes,It is up to us to freely accept the love that God wills for all of us.We find this in the lives of the Saints.

A Saint is someone who “accepts” God’s will and fully embraces it,even if it means constant pain and a cross in their lives.They accept the will of God even if they don’t understand it at the time because the love they have for God exceeds anything beyond their own selfish will. It is a total emptying of self in order that Christ can use our human nature.

This is what we are all called to do,and it is the hardest thing for us to do as well. If we do this ,it opens us up to a love that is truly unconditional,that is, Christ’s love fully guiding us along with our love for Christ working together to bring the love of Christ to others through our human nature.

I wish you a Blessed day!

We agree with many of its points and disagree with those points which do not agree with the Church.

The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits.

Chapter XXXII.—We are justified not by our own works, but by faith.

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. - Clement of Rome, Book XXXII

Chapter X.—The blessings that will flow from faith.

If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it,to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him. And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you? And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of His kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing. - St. Mathetes

"He can, if he is willing"

"And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first so loved you?".

This again is precisely what Calvin, and Augustine states. It goes back to Cyprian's quote of Paul's writings, "What do you have that has not been given to you?"

Augustine did not see that,...

In this theory, God wanted to display mercy and justice.

St. Prosper of Aquitaine is often called the great defender of Augustine. But he clearly contradicted Augustine on the massa damnata , three times.

It all depends on what version you're using. There are five different versions of Prosper's writing and they move from a total support of Augustine's writings to one that is sympathetic to Pelagius. The latter works are suspected of being corrupted because Prosper was such a big supporter of Augustine and an outspoken critic of semi-Pelagius. The fact that erroneous documents of Prosper showed up should be confirmation that someone was trying to tamper with the books to get their own theological view across. It should also confirm that Augustine's view was a hot topic in the Church.

How do I know what is to be kept and what is to be discarded? I believe in the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides it, in spite of the fallible men that make it up. I believe that the Church is the pillar of truth. I have the faith that the Apostles have handed down over the millennia to me.

:::The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits.:::

Umm, the Eastern Fathers did believed in earned reprobation, as did most of the Western Fathers, with the exception of Augustine’s brief foray into heresy.

:::Almighty God has justified all men;:::

All men, not just the lottery winners. Calvin would not have written that.

:::If you also desire [to possess] this faith, you likewise shall receive first of all the knowledge of the Father. For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it,to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him.:::

For God has loved mankind. Not just the lottery winners. All of it. He has made mankind, all of it, capable of salvation.

Augustine was in error and he recognized it. The reason that we have the Church is that it is far easier for a man alone to err than to have a learned body under the influence of the Holy Spirit err. Calvin quotes Augustinian error. He doesn’t quote Augustine overly much when he is in line with Church teachings, does he?

How do I know what is to be kept and what is to be discarded?

You - :::The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation...

You - Umm, the Eastern Fathers did believed in earned reprobation

My position is that the Eastern fathers did not believe in election whereas the western fathers were mixed. The predominate view of the early western church was for election and eventually this was erased.

Almighty God has justified all men;:::All men, not just the lottery winners. Calvin would not have written that.

Augustine was in error and he recognized it.

Calvin quotes Augustinian error. He doesn’t quote Augustine overly much when he is in line with Church teachings, does he?

I'm not sure. I never counted. The Church in Augustine's day was far different than in Calvin's day and is still different than is today (although not as much). I doubt if there be much that Calvin would have to say about Augustine's view of the Church's teachings at that time.

Thanks for the Baptist link. I use the WCF and the two Reformed Catechisms on a regular basis anyway.

Interesting home page:

:::We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.:::

Uh huh.

:::I’ve been label a pessimistic Calvinist.:::

Wow. That’s quite a label.

:::I believe the reason the Orthodox tend to be so solid in their beliefs is because they hold a strong synergistic view. The reason Reformers are consistent is because we hold a strong monergistic view. I happen to think that the Orthodox with their minimization of the inspired scripture is the wrong view. Everyone else, including Catholics, are all over the page because they hold to synergistism but cling to parts of monergistism to varying degrees.:::

We’d consider the Orthodox to be so solid because they hold fast to the original teachings of Christ, whereas we have been Protestantized to some degree. We’re a little tainted, I’d say, whereas they are more pure. The current Vicar is attempting to clip off the tumours, as it were. Our perspective.

I appreciate your candor, sir. I am also appreciating the WCF and other confessions and catechisms that I wasn’t very aware of until I started to participate in this forum. They provide food for thought (although I think that I will have to use some theological Tums on occasion). Thank you.

:::The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. :::

You’ve gotta complete the sentence. It’s all that cherry picking of Scripture that you guys do, I guess. :)

The Western Fathers were not mixed; Augustine was the only one who wandered into this thought.

:::If you divorced yourself from your paradigm for one minute, then you would understand that “God justifies all men” can only mean God justifies those who are saved.:::

I don’t know about that. “God justifies all men” as a standalone phrase would seem to mean just that. Unless the Reformed use “all men” and “all elected men” interchangeably.

:::That is why he recalled his books and wrote the Treatise of Predestination:::

???

:::We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. ...Uh huh.

Personally, I like to think of myself as more Orthodox Presbyterian with a few scruples. I'm the only original Harley-that's it! TA-DA! Sorry to disappoint.

We’re a little tainted, I’d say, whereas they are more pure. The current Vicar is attempting to clip off the tumours, as it were. Our perspective.

While I think the Reformation was fought over a number of issues, I think it was inevitable. There were still monergists in the western church but as the Church drifted eastward there was no reconcilation. The Reformers really didn't leave Rome. Rome left them.

The Western Fathers were not mixed; Augustine was the only one who wandered into this thought.

Unless the Reformed use “all men” and “all elected men” interchangeably.

That is why he recalled his books and wrote the Treatise of Predestination

It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought—I speak of the most blessed Cyprian—when he said "that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own."6 And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, "For what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received it, why boastest thou as if thou hadst not received it?" [1 Cor. 4.7.] And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate. Among these is that which you have mentioned in your letters,7 wherein is an exposition of certain propositions from the Epistle to the Romans. Eventually, when I was retracting all my small works, and was committing that retractation to writing,—of which task I had already completed two books before I had taken up your more lengthy letters,—when in the first volume I had reached the retractation of this book, I then spoke thus: —"Also discussing, I say, 'what God could have chosen in him who was as yet unborn, whom He said that the elder should serve; and what in the same elder, equally as yet unborn, He could have rejected; concerning whom, on this account, the prophetic testimony is recorded, although declared long subsequently, "Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated,"' [Mal. 1.2,3. Cf. Rom. 9.13.] I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of any one in foreknowledge of what He Himself would give them, but he chose the faith, in the foreknowledge that He would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on Him,—to whom He would give the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he might obtain eternal life also.' I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I as yet found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, 'A remnant are saved according to the election of grace.' [Rom. 11.5.] - Augustine, A Treatise on Predestination, Chap 7

The Anabaptist religion began in 1525 in Switzerland. The original Anabaptists held to three beliefs that set them apart: Believer’s Baptism, Pacifism and Community of Goods.
1- Believer’s Baptism The Anabaptists held that a person must first believe the gospel before he could be accepted into the Church with the sign of water baptism. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who placed believing ahead of baptism (Mt 28:19 and Mk 16:16).
2- Pacifism The Anabaptists held that one could not obtain or protect his rights by the use of force. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who commanded his followers not to resist an evil man (Mt 5:39 and Mt 18:36).
3- Community of Goods The Anabaptists held that one could not have private property but must share all his goods in common with Christ’s brothers and sisters. This is in accordance with the teachings of their Lord Jesus who said that no one could be his followers unless they gave up all of their possessions (Luke 14:33, also Mt 6:19-34, Mt 19:21, Luke 12:33, John 13:34-35, Acts 2:44-47 and Acts 4:32-5:11).

However, today most Anabaptists do not hold to item 3 above, community of goods, but it was part of the original Anabaptists belief.

“Anabaptists”, are many groups who adopted many of the beliefs of Zwingli, but later would fight him, and adopt many of the Calvin’s theories.
These Christians rejected infant baptism, choosing instead believer’s baptism.. Since many of them had been baptized in their infancy, they chose to be rebaptized as believing adults. So their enemies called them anabaptists — “re-baptizers.”

ANABAPTISTS, (after Zwingli), 1519.
- Brethren in Christ, German Switzerland.
- Hutterine Brethren.
- Mennonites, to Pennsylvania, in 1653.
- German Baptists, Dunkards, to USA, 1723.
- German Moravians, who became the “United Brethren Church”, in 1735.
- Separatists and Congregationalists, in England and Holland, came to America as the Pilgrim fathers on the “Mayflower” (repudiated the title of Anabaptists, as they did the “Baptists”).
- The Amish, to Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa.
- The Baptists in USA (repudiated the title Anabaptists).

The history is a little spotty before 1525.

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.