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.

At physical death, the physical body returns to dust, meaning nothingness. The physical body is mortal

It is the soul that animates the body. For someone to die, one's soul must experience (spiritual) death (alienation from God). When the Protestants say we are born "dead" they mean spiritually deprived of life.

Kosta: Is man immortal by nature?

FK: Spiritually, "Yes"

No! The immortality of the soul is conditional on God's grace. Fallen from grace, there is no life (God) in us.

The immortality of man was not "created" as his essence; it was attained from the tree of life; if we are immortal by nature, we would be God and we could not sin.

Adam and Eve were created neither mortal nor immortal, but potentially both.

Where does that rule come from? If you are made immortal by grace, do you then have the divine nature or essence?

That's a nonsensical question, FK. :) Immortality is attained through Grace. It's not an immutable quality of our nature.

In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we are clearly told that the rich man was well aware of his surroundings. The condemned will feel whatever causes weeping and gnashing of tee

The Jews believed that the afterlife was no different than the present life. In fact, in that same story, Lazarus is carried by the angels and the rich man is simply buried. Lazarus is in Abraham's bosom, and the rich man is begging Abraham to "save" him.

It's a verbal tapestry woven for the pubic to understand, but it also contains Christian concepts mixed with Judaic traditions. We know that being deprived of God is extremely uncomfortable for a soul, even unbearable. We do not know the true nature of that torment, but it has been likened to burning and gnashing of the teeth for the common man to understand.

First, Irenaeus did not believe in, or teach the immortality of the soul by nature.

"Souls...are immortal although they once had a beginning."

Against Heretics, Book 2

Second, Tertullian was a heretic because he embraced Montanism which teaches, among other thing, that the prophesies of the Montanists supercede those of the Apostles.

In reading about Tertullian I don't see any real substantive argument against him except that he didn't like some of the customs of the Church. I'd have to study it more but he sounds like the first Protestant to be perfectly honest.

The immortality of the soul is not its nature (i.e. it is not created immortal) but it is given by God (grace). If God created immortal souls then we would be God. You will just have to do a little more Church Fathers studying before you get the whole picture.

The problem with Tertullian and others on the Latin side...is that their misconceptions always started with the poor understanding of Greek...

Ireaneus has another quote:

"For that there is nothing whatever openly, expressly, and without controversy said in any part of Scripture respecting the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, they themselves testify, when they maintain that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to all, but to certain only of His disciples who could comprehend them, and who understood what was intended by Him through means of arguments, enigmas, and parables."

Iraeneus-Against Heresy, Book II

This marginal comment in particular, by John Kalomiros, a noted Greek theologian of recent times, is worth thinking about:

“I read the article by P. Chopelas carefully. I believe that it is correct. It certainly contributes to a meaningful idea of God and to a correct understanding of the nature of Heaven and Hell. ... the general concept that heaven and hell only represent how a man’s soul responds in the presence of the light of God is sound and patristic. Certainly the problem of how Christians receive the teaching of the Church on Heaven and Hell is not only a linguistic problem arising from false translations, but it is also a conceptual and cultural problem.”

“Well, does the reprobate soul spend eternity in hell or not? :)”

I meant to answer this. The answer to the question as posed is “no”. :)

When the Protestants say we are born "dead" they mean spiritually deprived of life.

Yes, dead "in sin", but not dead as to existence. When we are born we obviously have souls. Those souls never cease to exist, therefore, they are immortal.

The immortality of man was not "created" as his essence; it was attained from the tree of life; if we are immortal by nature, we would be God and we could not sin.

Then you have a special theological definition of the concept of immortality that is unknown to us. The Bible speaks of sinners going to hell for eternity tons of times. I have always considered it a basic Christian principle and had no idea that there were entire groups of Christians who disagreed with it, as you appear to.

The Jews believed that the afterlife was no different than the present life.

Is that what you believe?

While this seems to say that they were not technically Fathers, I still find it interesting how much influence they DID have over actual Fathers, even though they were "tinged with heresy". :)

Most of the Fathers of the Church I am aware of are the ones quoted in Catholic Prayer books or books on theology. I always assumed the Fathers of the Church would also have to be declared Saints. Guess I'm wrong. Is there a criteria for determining who is and isn't? I would think they all had to be from the 6th century or earlier and of course writers, teachers, theologians and probably priests, bishops or monks.

Read this, it may help, FK: http://aggreen.net/beliefs/heaven_hell.html

Thanks very much for the article. I can see by the author's approach that he simply retranslated the words he needed to get the result he wanted. It's the "Only Orthodox scholars know Greek" argument. That's fine.

[from the article:] In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

The following is from a website called Gotquestions.org:

Is hell real? Studies show that over 90% of people in the world believe in a "heaven" while less than 50% believe in an eternal hell. According to the Bible, hell is most definitely real! The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never-ending as the bliss of the righteous in Heaven. The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as "everlasting fire" (Matthew 25:41), "unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12), "shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2), a place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44-49), a place of "torments" and "flame" (Luke 16:23,24), "everlasting destruction" (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place of torment with "fire and brimstone" where "the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever" (Revelation 14:10,11), and a "lake of fire and brimstone" where the wicked are "tormented day and night forever and ever" (Revelation 20:10). Jesus Himself indicates that the punishment in hell itself is everlasting - not merely the smoke and flames (Matthew 25:46).

The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God in hell. They consciously suffer shame and contempt and the assaults of an accusing conscience -- along with the fiery wrath of an offended deity -- for all of eternity. Even those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalms 76:10). Those who are in the very real hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end! Praise God that through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16,18,36).

The Bible clearly teaches that hell is a place of eternal torment. Even Jesus said so. But of course, if all the words are translated incorrectly, then........ :)

I have to say that I was surprised to see this idea that hell is just some sort of mystical experience and that the damned are really side by side with the saved. That goes against all Biblical teachings I am familiar with concerning Heaven and hell. I don't think I would have guessed it possible for us to be so far apart on something so seemingly basic, but yet important in Christianity.

Is there a criteria for determining who is and isn't [a Church Father]? I would think they all had to be from the 6th century or earlier and of course writers, teachers, theologians and probably priests, bishops or monks.

Good question, I would like to know myself. :) One thing I'm pretty sure about is that the Orthodox, at least, consider some to be Fathers who are much later than the 6th century. One example would be +Gregory Palamas. But then, don't quote me. :) I've looked for lists, but haven't found anything authoritative-looking yet. Apparently there is more than one type of Church Father, so I'm trying to figure that out too.

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.

Illumination is a much better application.

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).

That is precisely why I asked for clarification on the level of "inspiration" being spoken of.(wink)

“Now, let’s take your scenario... a child, totally depraved by his parents, completely ignored by them. Now, suddenly, an adoptive parent takes him, cleans him up, loves him like no one ever has, takes care of him and let’s him live with the parent forever. That is the Lord with those he chose. We (and I am including you in this, because I can see in your nature that you love the Lord)having once been lost, wallowing in the mire of sin, have now been washed with the blood of the Lamb, adopted into the family of God, and will live with him, forever.”

Well.. I think you don’t believe in total depravity of calvinism, because total depravity taught by Calvin teaches that people are by nature not inclined to love .
God created us out of love and for love.He wills us to love.I don’t think you believe that God wills ANYONE to hate?

Dear Brother,your scenario is excellent, because it shows that the adaptive parents followed the will of God “freely”.
God worked in union with the adaptive parents human nature because of their desire follow the will of God.

When we humble ourselves to the will of God(that is always for the purpose of love) We become participants in the love of Jesus Christ

I think you missed the intent of my post. The adoptive parent IS God. It is God who takes us when we are worthless, downtrodden, sinful, and washes us with the blood of the Lamb. Man by himself is totally depraved, with nothing worthy of God. It is only when we are adopted into the family of God do we find ourselves not only clean, but worthy of worshipping God. We can face God unafraid, because he has chosen us to be his children. Rejoice in that.

1 John says that God is love, and no one can love who does not have God. It is God who gives us the love to share with each other. He gives this love to his children. Those who are not his children do not get this love.

You are mistaken, I do believe in the total depravity of man, the same as Calvin did. And I also believe that it is God who saves his own from that depravity. Romans 1 spells it out very thoroughly. God gave them over to their lusts, he allowed it. Some he saved from those lusts. They (you and I and all those God saved) are freed from the ravages of lust, freed from the consequences of sin, freed from slavery to the nature of man.

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.