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.

“”Sorry, I’m not following that. What do you mean?””

Perhaps this will help you?

Think of a child being totally depraved by his parents from birth to the age of say 14. Nothing this Child could ever do would ever please the parents.

Do you think this child would have any understanding of love at all? NO!

Now, apply this concept to God and man.

Total depravity makes no sense.

Yes,sin depraves us, and the more we sin the more depraved we will become.That is our own doing and that is not what God wants from us.

Christ came so that we may live life abundantly.
Not Totally Depraved!

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I am come that they may have life, and may have it more ABUNDANTLY.” (John 10:10)

I wish you a Blessed day!

Try reading +Athanasius the Great On the Incarnation. Its full of scriptural references. In the meantime, look at ...

+Athanasius the Great On the Incarnation

As far as your references, with the possible exception of John 10:34-35, I don't believe any of them support us being on the same par as God the Father. I was thinking about this as I was mowing the grass. According to the Orthodox understanding of the fillique of the Nicene Creed, there is God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God the Son, who proceeds from God the Father. If I'm not mistaken the Orthodox sees a very pronounce organizational structure in the Godhead. (Personally I agree with this interpretation btw.) Now, which level of the Godhead would you say we are to become like.

That, HD is one of the earliest and most deadly of heresies. All sorts of error stems from it, as Origen, among others found out. The human soul is not at all immortal by nature. Immortality is a gift offered by God which we can accept or reject as rational and free creatures.

Origen believed in the pre-existence of the soul and that those existing souls were imparted to people as they were born. I didn't make that claim. I said the soul was immortal-not eternal. Once a soul is born it does not die. It goes either to heaven or to hell. Immortality is a gift of God whether we want it or not-just like all God's gifts. But a soul is not eternal and has not always existed as Origen mistakenly claimed.

The council specifically stated that Honorius had advanced heretical teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them (and was not merely negligent, as some apologists still lie.) It condemned him by name as a heretic, anathematising him as such and excommunicating him.

He taught "error" exercising his office as Pope. Doesn't it take some fancy footwork to claim the "unbroken" lines of Pope weren't broken with him and/or to say the Church, represented by Pope Honorius, can not teach error?

"He didn’t start up a new religion; however what he did do was bad enough."

Some would say the RCC is not the same religion as the early Church; that it is indeed a "new" religion.

“According to the Orthodox understanding of the fillique of the Nicene Creed, there is God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God the Son, who proceeds from God the Father.”

Nope. The Creed as established by the Council Fathers says that the HS proceeds from the Father; most definitely NOT from the Son though perhaps one can say “through” the Son. In Orthodoxy there is no “filioque”. That is a later Roman innovation imposed on The Church there by the Franks.

“Immortality is a gift of God whether we want it or not-just like all God’s gifts.”

Then in Calvinist theology, the soul is indeed immortal...whether we or the soul wants it to be or not? Do you mean that God imposes immortality on the soul or that the soul is immortal by nature? That’s not at all what The Church taught, though various heretical sects based in Platonism did. Like I have said before, we believe very different things, more different than I would have suspected a few years ago.

Nope. The Creed as established by the Council Fathers says that the HS proceeds from the Father; most definitely NOT from the Son though perhaps one can say “through” the Son.

Good catch. Yes, I should have said through the Son.

Do you mean that God imposes immortality on the soul or that the soul is immortal by nature?

Well this is strange. Do you believe there are some people who have no soul? Do you believe that the soul can be destroyed? We may be talking past each other.

Here is an article by Boyce on DEATH AND THE SOUL'S IMMORTALITY. whereby half way down Boyce talks of the soul's immortality. If you believe this is heresy and never recognized by the Church, I would also refer you to St. Iraeneus' teachings on the immortality of the soul which is consistent with Dr. Boyce's article.

Chapter XXXIV.—Souls can be recognised in the separate state, and are immortal although they once had a beginning.

1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,—in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him—[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class [of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.

2. But if any persons at this point maintain that those souls, which only began a little while ago to exist, cannot endure for any length of time; but that they must, on the one hand, either be unborn, in order that they may be immortal, or if they have had a beginning in the way of generation, that they should die with the body itself—let them learn that God alone, who is Lord of all, is without beginning and without end, being truly and for ever the same, and always remaining the same unchangeable Being. But all things which proceed from Him, whatsoever have been made, and are made, do indeed receive their own beginning of generation, and on this account are inferior to Him who formed them, inasmuch as they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards.

- Iraeneus, Against Heresy, Book 2

Agreed again, assuming you mean that they explained more clearly for men what the scripture had revealed

I do. Their gift (talent) for explanation is what is inspired. But they did not reveal the truth; they only clarified it for the common man to understand. Just as +Paul did. Althought he called it a "gospel" (his gospel no less!), it is not considered a "Gospel."

I don’t think we use the typikon of the Church of Greece, but rather that of the Great Church at Constantinople, but I could be wrong

I don't think they differ.

The Church of Greece is really part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Archiepiscop of Greece is part of the EP's Synod.

According to the Orthodox understanding of the fillique of the Nicene Creed, there is God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from God the Son, who proceeds from God the Father

That is not so, HD. The Orthodox doctrine is that the Son is not the source (cause) of the Spirit; also the Son is begotten; He does not "proceed" (the Greek word is mora akin to "well") from the Father. Big difference. The confusion is in the Latin word procedere which does not imply an origin. A perfect example how a bad translation can lead to catastrophic theological errors!

The monarchy of the Father is absolute: He is the only one who is neither begotten nor proceeds from anything; the only one Who IS without a cause.

But before you cry "Mormons" again, remember that the Son is eternally (without beginning) begotten and the Spirit (as regards His existence) eternally proceeds from the Father. The Father is the cause of everything and all, including the divinity.

It may be that we are saying the same thing here, HD. The Fathers did not teach that the soul was by its nature immortal (and certainly not eternal and pre-existent). You’ve cited to +Iraeneus. Here’s what he said:

“Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King...may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments.”

No natural immortality there, HD. Note who gets immortality. Most of the Fathers spoke to this and quite clearly. Dr. Boyce’s article, at least insofar as he speaks of immortality of the soul, isn’t even remotely in accord with what the Fathers taught, but then again, the joyous (for some) prospect of truly eternal and unspeakable torment for the innocent non-elect couldn’t be enjoyed if the souls of the wicked are not immortal.

You might like this, HD:

“...true humility does not say humble words, nor does it assume humble looks, it does not force oneself either to think humbly of oneself, or to abuse oneself in self-belittlement. Although all such things are the beginning, the manifestations and the various aspects of humility, humility itself is grace, given from above. There are two kinds of humility, as the holy fathers teach: to deem oneself the lowest of all beings and to ascribe to God all one’s good actions. The first is the beginning, the second the end.” +Gregory of Sinai

and this:

“Having fallen from his heavenly rank through pride, the devil constantly strives to bring down also all those who wholeheartedly wish to approach the Lord; and he uses the same means which caused his own downfall, that is pride and love of vainglory. These and similar things are the means by which the demons fight us and hope to separate us from God.

Moreover, knowing that he who loves his brother loves also God, they put into our hearts hatred of one another - and this to such degree that at times a man cannot bear to see his brother or say a word to him. Many have performed truly great labors of virtue, but have ruined themselves through folly. It would not be surprising if the same thing were to happen to you too; if, for example, having cooled towards active work, you begin to imagine that you already possess virtues. For there you have already fallen into that devilish disease (high opinion of yourself), thinking that you are close to God and are in the light, whereas in actual fact you are in darkness.

What made our Lord Jesus Christ lay aside his garments, gird himself with a towel, and, pouring water into a basin, begin to wash the feet of those who were below Him (John 13:4, etc.), if not to teach us humility? For it was humility He showed us by example of what He then did. And indeed those who want to be accepted into the foremost rank cannot achieve this otherwise than through humility; for in the beginning the thing that caused downfall from heaven was a movement of pride. So, if a man lacks extreme humility, if he is not humble with all his heart, all his mind, all his spirit, all his soul and body - he will not inherit the kingdom of God.” +Anthony the Great

You’ve cited to +Iraeneus. Here’s what he said:... No natural immortality there, HD.

"Souls can be recognised in the separate state, and are immortal although they once had a beginning".

It is rather difficult to argue that St. Iraeneus isn't saying souls aren't immortal after they are created. Once again, he also states:

Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards.

I think Iraeneus if very clear that once God has created a soul, it exists forever.

Dr. Boyce’s article, at least insofar as he speaks of immortality of the soul, isn’t even remotely in accord with what the Fathers taught,

On the contrary, I find he is in complete alignment with Iraeneus.

“From this reference is it implied that we will be exactly like God the Father, Son and Spirit-at the same level?”

It means that we will be in the image and likeness of God. Here’s what +Gregory Palamas said:

“Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, ‘He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him’ (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.

Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.

Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the ‘spirit’, according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God.”

See? Easy!

The souls of the wicked are not immortal. That is denied to them.

I take it by this answer that you believe the souls of the wicked are annihilated after this life; is that correct? What happens to them?

If you want ANOTHER church father I would suggest A Treatise on the Soul by Tertullian where he states:

For in this philosophy lie both their Æons and their genealogies. Thus, too, do they divide sensation, both into the intellectual powers from their spiritual seed, and the sensuous faculties from the animal, which cannot by any means comprehend spiritual things.

The truth is, the soul is indivisible, because it is immortal; (and this fact) compels us to believe that death itself is an indivisible process, accruing indivisibly to the soul, not indeed because it is immortal, but because it is indivisible.

If this isn't enough, the Catholic website NewAdvent is very clear:

New Advent - Immortality

Sorry, on this one the Catholic Church and Protestant Church both agree, the soul is created at birth and is immortal. If the Orthodox does not believe that then I would suggest they check with their Catholic friends. You are simply trying a back handed attempt at making a case for the annihilation of the wicked. Sorry that won't work.

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.