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.

[Kolokotronis]

“And how do you know I am not an Irish/Greek? :>)”

‘Cause I’m one and it takes one to know one! Besides, most people here are far too nice and polite to be even a little bit Greek! :)

That Cain thing apparently comes from an outfit called Shepherd’s Chapel headed up by a fellow named Arnold Murray. Its down South somewhere as I understand it.

[irishtenor]

Well, I don’t mind calling THAT belief stupid.

Actually, I am Irish/French (but I really don’t claim the French part :>)

[kosta50]

“And how do you know I am not an Irish/Greek? :>)”

‘Cause I’m one and it takes one to know one! Besides, most people here are far too nice and polite to be even a little bit Greek! :)

Hey, don't leave us Serbs out of this!

[Kolokotronis]

“(but I really don’t claim the French part :>)”

Smart move...though a beautiful language!

[Titan Magroyne]

Aw c’mon, no rehearsal for this coming weekend?

P.S. Print hardcopies of the above referenced article as required reading before you’ll deign to discuss your FiL’s assertions. ;o)

[Kolokotronis]

"Hey, don't leave us Serbs out of this!"

I am informed, on very good authority (my buddy Bogdan) that long ago the Serbs were a gentle woodland folk of simple beliefs and childlike ways, trustworthy and tractable. Bad people drove them from their ancient homelands to the Balkan mountains where they fell in with the wrong crowd (I bet you can guess with whom). Since then they have spent their time drinking true necatar of the gods, domaca sljiva, practicing the most ancient form of Christianity, fighting Mohammedans and hanging out on mountains with Greeks. The Greeks, recognizing kindred lost souls, gave the Serbs an alphabet into which Greek may be EXACTLY translated. Thus, to this day, Church Slavonic is as precise a Christian theological language as Greek.

[Religion Moderator]

irishtenor and kosta50 are both correct in their understanding of the guidelines.

Open threads are not ecumenical. Posters on open threads should expect their confession to be challenged, ridiculed or whatever. If the poster cannot handle that type of "town square" debate, he should stay with the closed threads (devotionals, caucuses and prayer threads) which are "safe harbor."

I can intercede to keep posters from "making it personal" but there is nothing I can do to keep a poster from "taking it personally."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[D-fendr]

Explain then how God is just in commanding the infanticide of innocent babies.

That's a problem Calvinism has to answer. I think it goes with how God is just in creating innocent babies born reprobate - doomed as well.

[Forest Keeper]

English versions of the Bible are full of errors and therefore Orthodox people, learned or unlearned, cradle or convert know that the only safe way to understand the Bible is to read it in light of what The Church has always taught. If we read the Bible in Greek, we see the religion of The Apostles and The Fathers.

I find it odd that God would set up His word (in the NT) so that it could only properly be understood in a single language. That seems like very poor planning on His part. :) It would appear that God's intention was to only relate to Greek speakers, and the rest of the world would be totally dependent on them to know God. That is a very difficult concept to accept. :)

[Kolokotronis]

“It would appear that God’s intention was to only relate to Greek speakers, and the rest of the world would be totally dependent on them to know God. That is a very difficult concept to accept. :)”

Well, FK, there are a couple of ways to look at that. First is that that is exactly what God intended, or so it seems, given that the NT was written in Greek. The second is close to the first. What God intended was that people who are serious about Christianity would develop a language of theology and perhaps of worship which EXACTLY expressed what the Greek said. I pick #2.

This, of course, is precisly what the Slavs and to some extent Arabs did. The West, for reasons having to do with the Latin Western Empire and the predominence of Frankish thought in the post Empire period, chose otherwise. By the time the Reformers came along, the horse had long since left the barn.

It is interesting that the German Luther developed for his translation of the Bible was a sort of theological language, though not one designed to convey exactly what the Greek original said.

[irishtenor]

All of our pastors need to learn Greek in order to be ordained.

[irishtenor]

***Posters on open threads should expect their confession to be challenged, ridiculed or whatever.***

Consider yourself Whatevered :>)

[irishtenor]

And Hebrew.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements!

[D-fendr]

I find it odd that God would set up His word (in the NT) so that it could only properly be understood in a single language

Perhaps He set it up so that it would be understood in a single Church, transmitted in a way transcending language, from Apostle to their successors and their successor..s.

If God were practical and understood how languages work, perhaps would not rely upon words and translations of words and translations of translations of words.

That is a very difficult concept to accept.

Yes, transmitting spiritual knowledge accross the ages sola language would not be very wise. :)

[Forest Keeper]

For all eternity the desire for the sins which were the driving force of the affections of the wicked will still be present with the wicked, however, they will not have the circumstance to fulfill them, not even once, for all eternity. Would that be like being in "fire"? I think so.

That's an interesting idea. I've never thought of that before. I sure don't know exactly what the experience of the reprobate will be in hell, and I'm sure I don't want to know. :) But I think everything you said is perfectly reasonable. It would be kind of like a "torture tease". That would certainly be hell.

[Forest Keeper]

I think where the easterns have difficulty here is the terminology of "place", which means a location in spacial dimensions, whereas they see the separation from God, ...... as one being of a purely spiritual condition, of "darkness" or the absence of Light. But in that construct, it is forgotten that the wicked will be resurrected to a real, physical body, which indeed does require a "place" since that body has spacial dimensions.

That's right. The scriptures are clear on that. To build in allegory without scriptural support for their own position is forced. I am unsure what the Orthodox position is on glorified bodies, and whether they are real (literal) or not. But if they don't believe that Heaven is a place either, then I don't imagine they would believe in glorified bodies.

[D-fendr]

Sin is not ‘fulfilling’. Two old aphorisms come to mind:

“God must have really hated me, He gave me everything I wanted.”

and

“You can never get enough of what you really don’t want.”

[Forest Keeper]

But what is really a nonsense is that every Protestant claims the "indwelling spirit" and believes something completely private and inadvertently different from others! Thus Osteen would surely say that what he teaches about hell is from the Holy Spirit as much as you would disagree with him claiming the same Holy Spirit as the interpreter.

Oh, I think Reformers are a pretty tight bunch. It still sounds like you think it is proper to lump all Protestants together as being under one roof, the way you are. Then you believe it is fair to apply your rules to that group that you made up. It really doesn't work that way.

I'm sure that Osteen would say he is led by the Holy Spirit, the same as I do, and the same as your saying that the Holy Spirit leads the consensus patrum, and other majorities in the cases of doctrines and disciplines. It's the same idea, isn't it, except that for you it's by a vote of a group. Why is it that any one person can be wrong, or incomplete in his understanding, but magically any group must be correct? That doesn't make sense. Proof is in all the heresies, followed by groups, that you have fought against. Plus, Latin groups (or the Pope) disagree with your groups. You believe that God only leads your groups in scriptural interpretation, and we believe that God leads all of His children in scriptural interpretation. Neither argument is inherently superior to the other outside of scripture, and of course we both have our own ideas on THAT. :)

Protestantism is unbiblical private interpretation of the scriptures. The New Testament prohibits it. It is an amateur adventure, FK. It promotes relativism.

Actually, isn't it Orthodoxy that employs a much higher level of mystery in its theology? In addition, Orthodoxy has a much much "looser" view of scriptures, AND it relies on the uninspired words of majority groups of fallible men for ultimate spiritual truth. I'd say it was your side that would be much more susceptible to relativism. :)

[kosta50]

The Greeks, recognizing kindred lost souls, gave the Serbs an alphabet into which Greek may be EXACTLY translated. Thus, to this day, Church Slavonic is as precise a Christian theological language as Greek

And the Church Slavonic language, based on Greek structure and Slavic words...a masterpiece that remains unknown to most to this day.