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.

The Bible uses verbal imagery to "depict" the state of separation of the souls from God in a way that we can relate to. We really don't know what death "feels" like. Thus hell is depicted in many ways, all of which have a common theme and that is that the eternal state of separation from God is something none of us would wish.

Well, as you say, whatever it "feels" like it is something we don't want. That describes an immortal soul that is going to "feel" whatever it really is ...... forever. I have no problem taking the text at face value, unless there is a good reason not to, such as apparently contradicting other scripture, or an obvious parable, or a violation of reason. I am unaware of any contradicting scripture, or parables, or violations of reason in the verses encompassing our discussion.

You are too busy reading literally what's in the Bible. These are allegorical references to heaps of fire of Jerusalem garbage dumps, to burning sulfur lake, to cold and desolate place where the warmth of God never reached (outer space where the temperature approaches absolute zero?), etc. The common thread to all is true and clear: Hell is hell!

But other than the summary quote "darkness is where there is no light", what IS hell? How can there be a clear common thread if all of it is allegory that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways? I listed when I don't take the text literally (there may be other times), and none of those applies here. How do you know when to take the scripture as allegory and when not to? I'll bet it is whenever it disagrees with the consensus patrum, or whenever you just plain disagree with it. :) In these cases, passages in the Bible can be declared as an allegory for absolutely any outcome desired. So when you say "Hell is hell", that could mean absolutely anything. Apparently, men that you trust chose it to mean something not nearly so terrible as the text of the Bible describes.

I think it's really dangerous to just write off the text to allegory and preach that "we just don't know, it's probably pretty bad, but who knows". I am also at a loss to explain the possible motivation behind this. Normally I would think that a "brimstone" approach would help to consolidate power within the clergy and hierarchy. Such is critical to the life of the Church. But here, there appears to be a laissez-faire attitude about what the laity thinks about hell. I am reminded that Orthodoxy has its own definition for sin. It's really not the commission of evil, it's just missing the mark. I think that's the same attitude the Protestant pastors I recently criticized would have.

Christ revealed the Good News, not the "bad news." The whole focus of Christ's ministry is salvation, not condemnation; the Kingdom of Heaven and not Hell.

Are you kidding? Christ revealed ALL the news meant for us from Him, not only the good. How can anyone appreciate what the Good News means without a clear understanding of what the bad news is? He cannot. How many lost people do you think are walking around out there simply because they do not perceive any need for God? Dozens, hundreds, thousands, millions, more? I'd say it's more. One of the main reasons they don't or won't accept the Good News is that they have no comprehension of the bad news (by God's design of course :). This is why I think it is so dangerous to sugar coat what hell IS and MEANS. If every person had a clear understanding of the hell that is portrayed in the Bible, there would be VERY few unbelievers.

It's an optimistic and joyful religion, FK. I highly recommend it.

"Optimistic and joyful religion[s]" are what Warren and Osteen preach. Instead of that, my pastor preaches a personal one-on-one relationship with Christ. Optimism and joy are wonderful and Godly things, no doubt. But when they supplant the truth of the word of God, then it becomes false teaching.

My very vibrant full-of-life church has rejected labels as misleading and in fact restrictive.

My pastor constantly says he likes and prefers to use the term “spirit-led” — and indeed I believe that’s what it is.

And that suits me just fine, as each week we delve into the Bible, both Old and New Testament where the message never ceases to amaze.

(I was brought up in a strict Baptist Church, and my current church was at one time labeled Pentecostal, although no one refers by that, I don’t think.)

The elements of what constituted the Church for the last 2,000 years is lacking in Protestant/Baptist communities.

That is the very same attitude which gave us the inquisitions... the jailings of 'non' Catholics for doctrinaire reasons, and the heavy handed tactics which was used by the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries.

I certainly don't hold that against any Catholics of today, as those acts were perpetrated by men, not the Holy Spirit.

I love my Catholic brothers in Christ, and believe them to be genuine Christians.

No, its what the word "Αμαρτια", which is translated into English as "sin", actually means. The made up definition is the English one, not the Greek meaning. Greek is what was used in scripture, not English.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to tell us what the correct meaning is in English instead of simply telling us we're wrong. I am sure there is a way to correctly translate this word.

But this does remind me of the same situation we get into with the Catholics over the word "venerate". We say venerate means worship and they say we're crazy; we don't know what we're talking about because the Latin word doesn't adequately translate into the English.

I pity all those non-Greek Orthodox priests who can't truly understand their doctrine as much as I pity those priests who've lost the ability to speak Latin.

That describes an immortal soul that is going to "feel" whatever it really is ...... for

Do those who die in sin have life? Is life something we have on our own or is it from God. When a partient is maintained on life support systems and is then disconnected from that which keeps him alive, he dies. When we are separated from God, our life support source, we die. How can someone who is dead, separated from Life, be immortal?

Maybe you should ask yourself what does it mean to be dead (mortal).

Optimism and joy are wonderful and Godly things, no doubt. But when they supplant the truth of the word of God, then it becomes false teaching

And who is the supreme interpreter of the truth of the word of God? Your pastor? You? Is that biblical?

"Optimistic and joyful religion[s]" are what Warren and Osteen preach

I wouldn't know. But I know that Christ came to SAVE THE WORLD, FK. How about that little biblical truth?

If anyone wishes to subscribe to doom and gloom, fire and brimstones, that's their choice, but that's not the message Christ came to proclaim.

Then you must also believe that all the words around the word "sin" in the Bible, putting the word into context, are also wrong? I'm not so sure that your real beef is with the word "sin" itself, but with the concept behind it. If true, then tons and tons of scripture in English meets the chopping block. Yet, worldwide Orthodoxy has apparently abandoned its English speaking laity. While you and Kosta are very learned, you can't tell me that there aren't plenty of new or otherwise unlearned, English speaking Orthodox out there, whose English Bibles are so full of errors that they are virtually unusable.

FK, what part of sola scriptura provides for the creation of new definitions for Greek words? What is it we keep hearing on the radio talk shows? You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

First of all, I don't understand your question about radio talk shows. Could you clarify?

Now, excellent scholars can disagree on the definitions of Greek words, just as they can with English words. Hence, we have more than one reputable English dictionary. But the Orthodox do not recognize this fact at all. Comparatively, the Orthodox would say that the American Heritage Dictionary was full of lies because no one related to Noah Webster contributed to it, but Webster's Dictionary was 100% truth because only a Webster could ever understand English. Even the Latins resist this approach. Is it really intellectually honest to say that ONLY Orthodox scholars, throughout time, have ever understood the true Greek?

Perhaps it would be more helpful to tell us what the correct meaning is in English

It means to miss the mark. In Orthodoxy, the "mark" is Christ. Our actions are not Christ-like. THat is the understanding of sin in Orthodoxy and that's how the authors of the NT understood it. Not in juridical terms of breaking the law (which is Pharisaical) and a necessary penalty; just a failure. Those who sin are failures in Chirst.

But this does remind me of the same situation we get into with the Catholics over the word "venerate".

That comes from Greek as well. In Greek there are words ofte mistranslated as "worship" without qualification. But worship can be rendered to kings ad authorities and people we respect, but there is also worship reserved only for deity. Just as the filioque stems from the failure of the Latin language to correctly translate the Greek word to "proceed" (to well from), which always implies an origin rather than transit as well.

St. Augustine is known for his misinterpretation of Greek which he knew only marignally. Thus he translated a text which asserts that God created everything "at once" (simul) rather than "together." His readers who knew no Greek naurally built entire doctrines based on this mistranslation.

The same can eb said of the word baptiso (to immerse repeatedly affecting permanent change) rather than bapto which measn to simply immerse. The former is used in the NT in connection with baptism; the latter is not.

In the Lord's prayer the correct test is "as we have FORGIVEN those who tresspass against us." And "rescue us from the Crafty One" not from general evil.

And when the NT says "be therefore perfect..." it really says it in the future tense "become therefore perfect..." and so on, and so on, and so on...

These diffreences give different concepts and different cocnepts lead to different uderstandings and mindsets.

Concept formed on imperfect translations create imperfect doctrines...on assumption that we are reading what God, not humans wrote. Not one traslation of the NT is inspired. Not a single one.

FK: ”Optimistic and joyful religion[s]” are what Warren and Osteen preach.”

FK, you know those two aren’t Orthodox nor do they teach Orthodoxy. That said, Orthodoxy, for all its ascetical and liturgical rigor, is remarkably joyful.

Yes, I know that very well. They are Protestants. :) In 10,462 I criticized them both AS Protestant leaders, and I pinged you to the post. I was drawing a comparison between Orthodoxy and what I consider to be wayward Protestant preachers. The point being that in my current view, Orthodoxy and these Protestant preachers all "dumb down" the concepts of sin and hell to the detriment of the believer.

FK: "That is why I'm asking what the difference is between existing in a "state" with no location, and actually existing in torment in an actual place that takes up space in whatever dimension it's in."

The Jews and Greeks believed that "Shoel" or "Hades" is a place below the surface of the earth (the "underworld"). Do you believe that hell is a "place" below the surface of the earth as the OT seems to imply?

No, I don't believe that hell is necessarily in a location that is observable within the three (or 4) dimensions of our experiential universe. Hell is not hiding behind Mars or something like that. I assume it is in an unobservable dimension to us, and that the same principles that allow God to be in all places at once, apply. IOW, there are real places that take up space, that we are incapable of perceiving while we live on earth. I put both Heaven and hell into that category.

BTW, I was surprised that you brought up Hades. Am I right in that the Orthodox consider Hades and hell to be completely different concepts? If so, then Hades is unrelated to our conversation, and it doesn't matter what the Jews or Greeks thought.

Do those who die in sin have life?

They have "life" in existence, but not "life" in Christ. The Bible speaks of both concepts. I believe that the concept of "immortality", in the English, is much more associated with "life" in existence. You appear to have a different view. :)

Is life something we have on our own or is it from God.

God gives us our temporary physical life, as well as an immortal soul, which will go on forever either in Heaven or hell. The physical bodies we live in now do not go on forever. They are mortal.

When a patient is maintained on life support systems and is then disconnected from that which keeps him alive, he dies. When we are separated from God, our life support source, we die. How can someone who is dead, separated from Life, be immortal?

You are mixing the physical with the spiritual. The Bible confirms that they do not work the same way. In Genesis, God specifically limits our physical years to "120". Yet, we are told over and over again that if we believe we will have eternal life. Obviously, two different things are being referenced.

FK: "So when you say "Hell is hell", that could mean absolutely anything."

Well, I will also tell you that life is life even if you don't understand it, FK. How's that?

Consistent. :)

Do you know what hell is? Do you know what love is? Can you describe, paint, define either?

Scripture gives us the understanding of both that we are meant to have. I suppose that poets and philosophers (and others) have tried to improve upon it, but they have always failed. Everything we will ever need to know about love (or hell) is found right there in scriptures.

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.