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

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

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.

[kosta50]

Sorry, but God was doing very nicely for the gazillions years before we came along. He has His angels to praise Him-He doesn't need us

Gazillions of years? There were no angels before the Creation. In fact, there was no time either, no years to count, HD! Angels were created as His hosts and obligate servants (the biblical word used is closer to a "slave"), as God's messangers (aggelos), not His "fans." In the OT, angels are tasked with genocides in the name of God, as God's executioners.

Well, why don't you just throw the bible in the trash

Well, if you are gong to call starving/raped children in Darfur "fools for Christ" I think that would be the right thing to do. Your verses were out of order, HD. You need to concentrate on the Beatitudes (Gospels). It is by far mor edifying to read what Christ had to say than any other author.

[kosta50]

Personally, I think the Protestants use the word inspired differently than we do, or ascribe more “importance to it” than we do. Given the way they regard the Bible, I suppose I can understand how that can be.

Literalism is certainly one of those and unbiblical private interpretation of the scriptures is another. By claming indwelling Spirit, in a way every Chrisina is claiming some degree inspiration. But naturally, one say that a dedicated physician inspired someone to become a doctor, or that a book was inspiring, or that one is inspired by God's goodness and love. Inspired simply means "moved" (quickened). Yet we also believe that the so-called truly "inspired" were only the Apostles, and the Church as a whole (through Ecumenical Councils).

[Kolokotronis]

“Yet we also believe that the so-called truly “inspired” were only the Apostles, and the Church as a whole (through Ecumenical Councils).”

What about someone like +Symeon the New Theologian or +Gregory of Nyssa or +Anthony the Great or +Athanasius the Great ...hmmm? What does one say about the inspired nature of writings of Christians who attained theosis? Because they could err, does that mean they couldn’t be inspired? Surely that can’t be true, Kosta. The Apostles were great doubters and deniers. I think The Church means exactly what it says in the Kontakia.

[blue-duncan]

“Angels were created as His hosts and obligate servants (the biblical word used is closer to a “slave”), as God’s messangers (aggelos), not His “fans.” “

That’s not quite true. Job 38:7 (”When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”) places angels singing God’s praises before the creation of man.

[irishtenor]

What were the MULTITUDE of angels doing in Revelation 5?

[Forest Keeper]

God knows our needs and desires. Yet prayer is what He wants of us because it is a synergistic relationship that He wants from us. We receive Spirit, and we give our spirit to God.

"Synergy" from Answers.com: "1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects."

Each side contributes so that the result is greater than either side could have created on its own. Do you really think God fits into an arrangement like that? I think you believe God needs us to get what He wants much more than I ever suspected. :)

The trapped miners who died in September certainly hoped they would be rescued, yet it was their time to die, regardless of their prayer. For all we know, they may be in a much better and happier place now, but they did not want to die; they wanted to live and their prayers, and the prayers of their families and of the entire nation, indeed, resulted in their demise.

I was with you until the last line. :) How did the prayers of everyone RESULT in their demise? You acknowledged right away that it was their time to die. I agree. So, if no one had prayed, might they have survived?

Phil 4:19 : And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

Tell that to the starving and persecuted Christians in Darfur.

Another disfavored Biblical verse is apparently declared wrong.

[Forest Keeper]

Tired or praying?

His prayer was so intense, he forgot that he had prostrated upside down. :)

[Forest Keeper]

I have no problem at all seeing that the God who created the entire Cosmos, ex nihilo, could have temporarily given Moses his body for the purpose of Moses being present at the Transfiguration. Since Elijah was taken without dying, he would have still had a body.

Thanks much for the explanation, MLG. It is very nice to meet you. I have very much enjoyed reading your posts on this thread. :)

[Forest Keeper]

[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit. [from Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America]

This obviously presents a problem because it makes the Bible a fallible document in need of repair. Presumably, that would only be possible through an INFALLIBLE consensus patrum. That would clearly raise the consensus patrum above the level of scripture. However, the Orthodox I know here would probably not agree with that conclusion. What is the answer?

In addition, we all call the Bible "God's Holy word". If God is Holy in essence, and His word is Holy, then how can His word contain error? For this question we can throw out translation and copying errors because in your quote above it was specifically asserted that there was original error by the original writers.

They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK. The ratio is very lopsided in favor of the Septuagint.

Even if so, a 93% use of the Septuagint does not equate to a 93% rejection of the truth of the Masoretic text. In what percent of the verses is there a material difference? I ask because I don't know, and I included BD on the ping list because I have some memory of him speaking on this before.

How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?

Do you call the KJV, for example, a heretical document? Is it THAT drastically different from your Bible that you cannot get God's truth from it? That sounds strange coming from you since you believe that most of the Bible is allegory anyway. In the big picture, I always thought the main material difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text was the Apocrypha.

Well, the New Testament prohibits [private interpretation], and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)

Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues? To what could this have been attributed if not to private interpretation?

[Diva]

Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues?

By who? Bishops, the Pope, or other Fathers of the Church?

[HarleyD]

In the OT, angels are tasked with genocides in the name of God, as God's executioners.

You may want to check Revelation. Angels are God's "executioners" in the NT as well.

Well, if you are gong to call starving/raped children in Darfur "fools for Christ" I think that would be the right thing to do. Your verses were out of order, HD.

All Christians are considered fools for Christ-rich or poor-regardless of their nationality. I don't understand you fixation on starving and raped children in Darfur. I would say this is indicative of man's depravity. Since the Orthodox believes in the goodness of man and that we can work our way to heaven if we really, really try, I wonder why no one is trying? What are the Orthodox doing about the issue?

You need to concentrate on the Beatitudes (Gospels). It is by far mor edifying to read what Christ had to say than any other author.

Will concentrating on the Beatitudes help the starving and raped children of Darfur?

[kosta50]

What about someone like +Symeon the New Theologian or +Gregory of Nyssa or +Anthony the Great or +Athanasius the Great ...hmmm? What does one say about the inspired nature of writings of Christians who attained theosis?...The Apostles were great doubters and deniers. I think The Church means exactly what it says in the Kontakia

So, then why didn't the Church add the writings of +Symneon the New Theologian and others to the canon of scripture?

[Forest Keeper]

... For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" -- Isaiah 14:24-27

Amen, Dr. E. Thank you and thanks for the wonderful scripture. I always love it when you know of scripture that I hadn't even thought of that backs up something I say. LOL! It's very encouraging.

[kosta50]

That’s not quite true. Job 38:7 (”When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”) places angels singing God’s praises before the creation of man

Did I say the angels were created after man was created? I simply said they did not exist before time existed, i.e. "zillions of years" in Harley's parlance. However, angels did not exist before Creation. As to how soon after wards did God create man is a different story.

Your verse also says nothing as to the actual timing of the angels singing praises...except that it was after the formation of the earth. So, I take it HD believes in evolutionary time scale when he says "zillions of years."

[kosta50]

"Synergy" from Answers.com: "1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects."

Why not go to the source and see how the Church defines this term (which is a Greek term and which was used by the Church in the same sense as today for 2000 years, which is eaons before Answers.com became the "norm").

In any case of "synergy" (cooperation) between God and man, God leads, and man follows; God works, and man accepts God's work in him, as God's coworker in subordination to Him. So it is with divine inspiration in the case of the Bible: the Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit. [Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America "Dogmatic Tradition"]

The "combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects" aplies to man led by the Higher Power. Our synergy with God does not enhance God (LOL!) but man. Your out of context dictionary quote is a straw man, FK.

I agree. So, if no one had prayed, might they have survived?

No, but this proves my point that Calvinsits see prayer as an obligation which has no effect on anything.

How did the prayers of everyone RESULT in their demise?

They prayed for life and they received death. And your own quote from Phil 4:19 says "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus" suggests that they did not know their needs.

From this we can draw two possiblitieis: (1) the verse is not true but misinterpreted or (2) those who truly believe will not pray because we (robots) don't know what our needs are. Number 1 is very likely. Number 2 is Calvinism 101.

FK: Phil 4:19 : And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

Kosta: Tell that to the starving and persecuted Christians in Darfur.

FK: Another disfavored Biblical verse is apparently declared wrong

Please prove it right in terms of "being fools for Christ" next time you see a starving child. If this life is so short of "glorious riches in Chrust Jesus" then why are all Calvinsits still around on this filthy earth, and why are they not hastening their departure? (David Koresh and Tom Jones alert!)

[HarleyD]

So, I take it HD believes in evolutionary time scale when he says "zillions of years."

I believe history has been made. This is the first time I know of that you actually seem to indicate that you agree with the OT and the literal creation of 6, 24-hour days. When you have thought just about everything else in the OT was a myth, you are supporting the literal 6-day creation??? Fascinating.

As for me, I have never subscribed that creation was 6, 24 hour periods. I think the scriptures are inconclusive on this so rarely will you find me arguing about this. I think it's pointless without clear scriptural evidence.

I will add that I do not believe in the evolution of man although plant and animal life around them could have evolved. Adam and Eve could have been on this planet in the garden for millions of years before the fall. We have no way of knowing. People like to calculate the age of the earth by estimating biblical generations of 120 years but this reminds me of when I tried to estimate the depth of a pond based upon the slope of the ground. I estimated the pond to be 5,000 feet deep.

But man, unlike animals, is unique and depraved; and it all stems from Adam.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues?"

By who? Bishops, the Pope, or other Fathers of the Church?

Presumably, by authority of the Magisterium. Obviously, not all the writings of the Sainted early Fathers are considered part of your Holy Tradition. Why is that? Wasn't Origen considered an early Father? Yet, he was excommunicated. In addition, many of the original Reformers, now considered heretics, were humanly inspired by Augustine. All I was saying is that there were lots of Fathers who went off the reservation, as compared to the majority, on at least one issue or other. I'm asserting that the reason for that must have been the accusation of private interpretation.

[kosta50]

FK I will answer the rest of your post later, as I am in a hurry this morning. I just want to reflect on one point however before I leave.

Were not many of the early Fathers accused of heresy on specific issues? To what could this have been attributed if not to private interpretation?

None of the Fathers were accused of heresy for their theologoumenna (hypotheses). Those who were anathematized are not the Fathers of the Church (i.e. Origen, Montanus, etc.) because they professed as truth their heresy.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers and a disciple of Origen, proposed—no doubt under Origen's Gnostic influence—universal salvation. Unlike his mentor, he later recanted this teaching and accepted the orthodox view that not everyone will be saved because of unrepetance of some.

Blessed Augustine of Hippo, likewise reached a point of "no return" with his teaching and recanted many of his postulates in a somewhat lesser known work of his (one of his last) titled "Retractions." St. Augustine realized that the turth of the Orthodox Faith is contained in the Catholic Church and he, in the end, derferred to the Church.

The Church always accepts those who have strayed into heresy as long as they recant their heretical teaching, so there is hope for all Protestants. :)

[blue-duncan]

“What were the MULTITUDE of angels doing in Revelation 5?”

They were practicing for when the Red Sox would finally win the World Series in 2004 and 2007.

[blue-duncan]

“Did I say the angels were created after man was created?”

The job cite was an answer to this statement:
“Angels were created as His hosts and obligate servants (the biblical word used is closer to a “slave”), as God’s messangers (aggelos), not His “fans.”. They were praising God before they were ministering agents to man.