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.

[irishtenor]

It’s not a cop-out if it is the truth, is it? I actually feel very comforted knowing that God is in control.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

But I know that Christ came to SAVE THE WORLD, FK. How about that little biblical truth?

If that were the case, then the Apostolic teaching of the Scriptures are wrong when teaching there are those whom God has blinded to the Truth of the Gospel.

Romans 11:

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:

“ God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 Corinthians 4

1 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Apparently God has exercises His Free Will to blind those whom He wills, as opposed to your own concept.

[irishtenor]

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

Marriage?

Sorry, couldn’t help myself :>)

[Kolokotronis]

“I actually feel very comforted knowing that God is in control.”

I don’t doubt that at all, IT.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

""hilasterion", is an appeasing sacrifice by which the Wrath of God against sin was satisfied by the Precious Blood of Christ, just as the blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant did for Israel on the Day of Atonement."

Yup, they really do worship a monster whose wrath is slacked only with innocent blood, preferably the blood of its only son. Κυριε Ελεισον!

It is truly sad to see that you reject the Apostolic teaching of Scripture.

What do you think all that talk by Jesus and the Apostles of the Blood of Christ being a "protitiation" and covering of sins is all about? The Old and New Testament are repleat with them.

Matthew 26:27-28

27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new[a] covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

That was not some nice, new little ritual to keep people busy on Sunday. It has real meaning, within the context of the passages already cited on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement and the following:

Hebrews 9

1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary; 3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All, 4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.

6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services. 7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance; 8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come,[a] with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”[b] 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I highly recommend that you study that deeply, for it says exactly what I said you find so offensive.

I am saddened that you have such a low regard for the Precious Blood of Christ.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

That RCC claim of superiority just smacks of intolerance, pure and simple.

It's not only the RCC that claims to be the one and only true church, but the eastern orthodox, do as well.

Did I mention the Mormons do too?

[kosta50]

Definately wickedness, but it worked according to God’s purposes, to save the nation of Israel. In other words, God allows wickedness in the world to work his purposes and to do his will.

Allows, yes; yet He is not the source of it. It is foreknown (He knows our end as well as beginning all at once) but not preordained. Because of His foreknowledge (He knows what choices we will make) everything works to His purpose. But He is not the source or cause of it.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

“Wrong again.

The filioque proves it.”

Oh, I’d just love to hear your thoughts on this one! How about it, give us the Protestant read on the filioque innovation, especially its Patristic pedigree.

I'd already done that much earlier.

The Apostolic teaching of Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father AND the Son.

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper(Paraclete), that He may abide with you forever—

John 14:26
But the Helper(Paraclete), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 15:26
“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.

As I have stated earlier as well, Rome was clearly in violation of the canons of the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon that prohibited the alteration of the Nicene Creed when unilaterally inserting the filioque clause, and thus came under anathema as per those canons from Nicea and Chalcedon.

[stfassisi]

Dear Brother,Thanks for the info but,for me,I think new advent explains purgatory in depth including the Council of Florence.

Excerpt; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine in Ps. 37 n. 3, speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, “gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita” (P. L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. “Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur”, and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; “Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta”. How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops “to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification’, and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion” (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”).

In the end, I would not expect God to accept anything unclean into heaven. It is just another way for God to allow for us on earth to pray for our departed,and for our departed to repay the debt of sin to enter into heaven clean.

You do pray for the departed? Yes/No?

I wish you a Blessed Evening!

[kosta50]

While I would agree with the EOs on the point that the wide variety of imagery describing the state of eternal separation from the Love, Mercy and Grace of God, but not being separated from the Wrath and Justice of God, is describing a state far worse than the images can convey, to reject the doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked in hell is a rejection of the revealed Nature of God's Justice and Wrath, which is exactly what Joel Osteen and so many others do

The Orthodox do nto reject the state of eternal disocmfort experienced in the state of eternal separation from God. And I would agree that no words can convey the ogrror of that state of separation.

But, as Orthodox Christians we concentrate on God's salvific message because it applies to those who are in His Church. We can only pray that those who are not in His Church would come to Christ before it's too late.

[Kolokotronis]

"It is truly sad to see that you reject the Apostolic teaching of Scripture."

But we Orthodox do not reject Apostolic teaching. We have preserved it inviolate for 2000 years. I'm trust you will forgive me if I find your notions "innovative".

"What do you think all that talk by Jesus and the Apostles of the Blood of Christ being a "protitiation" and covering of sins is all about? The Old and New Testament are repleat with them."

That's easy. Read this; it will tell you what Orthodoxy believes about atonement:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-easter.html

Look at this and you will see what Orthodoxy believes about atonement:

"I am saddened that you have such a low regard for the Precious Blood of Christ."

Well, I'm saddened that you are saddened, MLG. Truth be told, I receive that Precious Blood on every occasion when I am properly prepared. Tell me something, does the blood lust of the "god" you worship translate in any way into the astonishingly bloody history of Western Christianity? It would seem that that bloody sacrifice has made much of a dent in the West. Like other places infested with heresy, evil seems on the ascendant.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Do you really think that wickedness can thwart (I love that word)God’s will? Or does God use man’s wickedness to his own purposes?

And, as Marting Luther said of the devil, "Satan is God's Satan", meaning that Satan does nothing and can do nothing without God's prior approval, lest God be unaware of Satan's activities and Satan is of an equal force as God is, in which that puts someone in the corner of the Docetists and Gnostics.

Therein lies the peril of relying more on "tradition" than the Scriptures, when that "tradition" is contradictory to the Scriptures.

[stfassisi]

MLS, Do you believe in the serpent seed idea-that Eve had intercourse with satan and produced cain?

Yes or no?

Please answer the question.

[stfassisi]

Allows, yes; yet He is not the source of it. It is foreknown (He knows our end as well as beginning all at once) but not preordained. Because of His foreknowledge (He knows what choices we will make) everything works to His purpose. But He is not the source or cause of it.

Bless you! Another excellent post!

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

Because of His foreknowledge (He knows what choices we will make)...

Therefore, God sees something in man that causes God to choose man, being his choice made from his own goodness.

That is a contruct that is totally contradictory to the Apostolic teachings of Scripture.

"There is none good, no not one."

Jesus replied to the rich young man who asked Him, "Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life", by asking him, "Why do you call Me good? There is but One who is good, that is God."

That construct of God looking down the tube of time to see that a man uses his own goodness to choose God, is contradictory to what "foreknowledge" actually means, being a fore-LOVE, for God has Loved the Elect before the foundations of the cosmos, and makes salvation the result of a human act, choosing God, and not a Divine Act of God exercising His Free Will.

[kosta50]

Let's cut through this bogus chase, Missey and stop pretending innocence: WHY did you ask me if I considered the "council" of 754 "inspired?" Your questions and comments betray that you know too much Church history to just ask a naïve question. That means you know the Church does not consdier that council as "inspired" and naturally neither would I, being that you know I am Eastern Orthodox.

Why did you ask if not to provoke?

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

But, as Orthodox Christians we concentrate on God's salvific message because it applies to those who are in His Church.

Why do you think Jesus Himself taught so much on hell?

[Kolokotronis]

MLG, do you know what "εκπορευόμενον," means? Here's a hint, it doesn't mean "procedit" What you are talking about is "through the Son" with the Greek word "Δια" meaning "as through a tube", the Son being a hollow conduit. That's Orthodox, but its not in the Creed because the Creed isn't talking about the sending of the HS by the Father but rather the origin of the HS in the Father. Filioque, sadly for you Westerners, had nothing to do with the perfectly proper "Δια" theology to which the Apostles spoke but rather, in an effort to deal with Arian claims about Christ, to an attempt to redesign the Trinity and abrogate the monarchy of The Father. Good intentions, bad theology...which Rome now recognizes.

[Missey_Lucy_Goosey]

MLS, Do you believe in the serpent seed idea-that Eve had intercourse with satan and produced cain?

Yes or no?

Please answer the question.

Tell you what. I'll make a deal with you.

Many days ago, I presented YOU with several dogmas of the RCC, and asked YOU to produce dogmatic Patristic teachings on them from the first 4 centuries of the Church, which YOU have not answered, YET.

You answer those and I will answer yours, but I will NOT, I repeat, will not respond to your feeble attempts at badgering.

Do you understand?

Good.

[Kolokotronis]

“You do pray for the departed? Yes/No?”

Everyday, StFA, everyday!

By the way, anything from the Pseudo Council of Florence will get you exactly nowhere with us Orthodox. The falsity of that ouncil and its “dogmas” were proven, for us, by the immediate rejection of them by the people of God.

“In the end, I would not expect God to accept anything unclean into heaven.”

We don’t see things that way at all, StFA, starting with “unclean” right through “into heaven”.