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.

[Forest Keeper]

What or who is dagon?

Dagon was one of the many false gods of the OT. Here is one account, and remember that the assertion is that we follow this god:

1 Sam 5:2-7 : 2 Then they carried the ark into Dagon's temple and set it beside Dagon. 3 When the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the Lord! They took Dagon and put him back in his place. 4 But the following morning when they rose, there was Dagon, fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of the Lord! His head and hands had been broken off and were lying on the threshold; only his body remained. 5 That is why to this day neither the priests of Dagon nor any others who enter Dagon's temple at Ashdod step on the threshold.

6 The Lord's hand was heavy upon the people of Ashdod and its vicinity; he brought devastation upon them and afflicted them with tumors. 7 When the men of Ashdod saw what was happening, they said, "The ark of the god of Israel must not stay here with us, because his hand is heavy upon us and upon Dagon our god."

Obviously, the assertion is that none of us are Christians.

[HarleyD]

I think it goes with how God is just in creating innocent babies born reprobate - doomed as well.

The Westminster Confession does not presume to know the election status of anyone. All anyone can know is their election status.

Catholics have this entirely backwards IMO. They presume to know the election status of babies and people who have died, yet they don't know their own election status.

I wonder if Peter or Paul thought that they were saved while on earth?

[kosta50]

MLG: 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

FK: That's right. The scriptures are clear on that. To build in allegory without scriptural support for their own position is forced

The only thing the Scriptures is clear on is that the heaven is "up" there and hell is "down" somewhere in earth. Do you believe hell is in earth?

Christ has a Body sitting to the right "side" of the Father Who has NO BODY! Do you have any idea where Christ's body may be located in space?

Obviously, our language and conceptutal capacities are deficient in being able to express or know such mysteries intellectually, just as none of those alive really knows what it means to be dead. Only the dead do. A different dimension. They are profoundly experiential in nature, and as such can only be described allegorically and anecdotally.

Can you describe accurately what love is in real physical terms? Or can you only appeal to experiential and anecdotal tools and know that they all fall short of what you really know?

You cannot speak of the other dimension in terms of this dimension. All we know is that everything that lives dies. What happens behind that door is not within us to know in this dimention (of our existence), or to describe except as allegory. Literalism is a sure way to miss the point.

But you are right: allegories are forced upon us to describe the indescribable.

[HarleyD]

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.

I believe hell tends to be played down too much. Some think of it as a separation from God, God turning their back on sinners, etc. I actually believe we are sugarcoating these to excuse our condition. If the flames of hell are real and it is a place where the worms will eat us throughout eternity; knowing that God is a just and merciful God should make us think what vile creatures we actually are to receive such a sentence. We should also stop and think what a wonderful and loving God we have, that He is willing to endure us in our condition simply to save and prepare some of us for heaven. While most don't like to think of ourselves in this way, I think Jonathan Edwards explains it best in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

[kosta50]

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

Au contraire, FK, they are as loose as it gets and getting looser by the day...thousands of splinter groups. The fact that there is no one Protestant Church indicates that there is no one Protestant theology and that such relativistic groups cannot subscribe to an absolute truth or a single corherent theology, but is a loose aggregation of personal interpretations.

As I said, you and Osteen cannot be both guided by the same Spirit and be on opposite ends of hell.

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

The Holy Spirit leads to consensus patrum, to one Church, FK, not to 33,000 denominations.

Actually, isn't it Orthodoxy that employs a much higher level of mystery in its theology?

What does mystery have to do with relativism? God IS mystery. Can you describe God accurately as He is? Or do you have to use allegorical language? The only way to describe God for us to be able to see Him and know Him in our terms is through Christ. That is a profound revelation. He is nothing like us. That's why Christ took on human nature, so that we can relate to Him through the prism of our limited senses and concepts, in human terms. Otherwise, relating to God is impossible without heretical anthropomorphism.

But, unlike Protestants, we believe in one thing, one Holy Apostolic Church, one Truth, One God, one Faith. Not thousands of relatively more-or-less "true" faiths or opinions...and for all the hype of differences between the Orthodox and Catholic, the two Churches are 99% in agreement (the 1% of disagreement is profound and didfficult for human mindsets to resolve), but it is safe to say that, all things considered, despite 1,000 years of separation and more, and cultural diversities, our Church has remaind almost untouched, and did not turn into 33,000 little "churches." That is a testimony of itself of the fact that Gates of Hell shall not overcome it.

[HarleyD]

Au contraire, FK, they are as loose as it gets and getting looser by the day...thousands of splinter groups. The fact that there is no one Protestant Church indicates that there is no one Protestant theology

You mistake the difference between "Reformers" and "Protestants". You'll find very little difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian. Osteen is not Reformed.

As I said, you and Osteen cannot be both guided by the same Spirit and be on opposite ends of hell.

I would agree; just as I would say that the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant position can't ALL be right. Right now the Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants have completely different views of hell (among other things).

Who is guided by the Spirit? One must be closer to the truth than the others. Where does one go to find the answers? Do they go to a group of men who decide for them? If so then who's right, the Orthodox or the Catholics? Orthodox can pull out writings from fathers but so can the Catholics. What good does it do? In the end it all comes back to what is written in God's word.

The Holy Spirit leads to consensus patrum, to one Church, FK, not to 33,000 denominations.

We're back up to 33,000 now.

for all the hype of differences between the Orthodox and Catholic, the two Churches are 99% in agreement (the 1% of disagreement is profound and didfficult for human mindsets to resolve),

Oh, brother. The Orthodox and Catholics disagree on the fillique, on hell, on atonement, on justification, on original sin, on papal authority, on principle doctrines of Mary. The only thing I can think where they agree is on the Eucharist and free will. I suppose some would see that as being in 99% agreement.

[MarkBsnr]

We have indications that we can.

There have been many people who have apparently embraced the faith sincerely and wholly and then fallen away at some point in their lives. There have been many people who have spurned the faith of Jesus for Eastern mysticism or pagan rites.

If we spurn God, then we spurn His Grace, and lose our faith. The evidence is there.

[MarkBsnr]

The Pope wandered off into heresy; Church teachings did not and the Church took it seriously enough that it took the steps as drastically as it did to make sure that any error lurking in the wings or under the carpet were eradicated. You must admit that the reaction was pretty drastic.

Some say a lot of things; look at the current crop of Presidential candidates for instance. It doesn’t make them either true or untrue.

[Kolokotronis]

“Obviously, the assertion is that none of us are Christians.”

You really do have to take such comments whence they come, FK! :)

In any event, I haven’t noticed that any of you are sissies, unlike some around here!

[irishtenor]

We know where our treasure is. They can carp all they want to, it is God who choses his own. Praise be God on high.

[HarleyD]

If we spurn God, then we spurn His Grace, and lose our faith. The evidence is there.

Faith, by definition, is, well, faith. How can we spurn something that we have faith in. The evidences isn't as it seems.

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

[OLD REGGIE]

The Pope wandered off into heresy; Church teachings did not and the Church took it seriously enough that it took the steps as drastically as it did to make sure that any error lurking in the wings or under the carpet were eradicated. You must admit that the reaction was pretty drastic.

"Cannot teach error". "Unbroken line".

Was he a true Pope? Was the line broken?

[HarleyD]

In any event, I haven’t noticed that any of you are sissies, unlike some around here!

LOLOL!!! Yes, we're "manly" Christians.

er....Yes Dear, I'll vacuum right after I finish the dusting.

[D-fendr]

The Westminster Confession does not presume to know the election status of anyone.

But doesn't it presume to know that God creates innocent babies - born and forever - reprobate?

[stfassisi]

The Church always believed that the souls of the departed are in an intermediate state followoing physical death and particular judgment immediately following), and always prayed for the departed souls to ease their discomfort.

The souls of the saved experience discomfort through shame as their unrepented sins are revealed in full and as they stand "naked" before God and all the saints. The period from particular to Final Judgment is a period of purification, through prayers, commemorative services, fasting, etc. not by being roasted to God's "satifaction." The fires they feel are not real fires, but God's love which burns all sinners confornted with Truth.

Dear Kosta, This actually explains purgation of sin very well.

[HarleyD]

But doesn't it presume to know that God creates innocent babies - born and forever - reprobate?

No, the confession gives us no idea since it is impossible to know the mind of God.

EFFECTIVE CALLING

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel. - Westminster Confession-Effective Calling

-----------------------

EFFECTUAL CALLING

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

Westminster Confession-Effectual Calling

[D-fendr]

It seems to say so there in IV - “Others...”?

[HarleyD]

It simply saying that only the elected go to heaven. Others do not. Who those “others” are we don’t know.

The website has scriptural references if you need it.

[D-fendr]

I’m not being clear, my apologies.

I don’t mean to say that in Calvinism, you know specifically who is born reprobate and who is born elect. But that some are born reprobate and forever reprobate.

This would be a true statement, yes?

[HarleyD]

I don’t mean to say that in Calvinism, you know specifically who is born reprobate and who is born elect. But that some are born reprobate and forever reprobate.

What you are implying is that some people are born elected and some are born reprobates, which is not technically correct. All people are born in a fallen, wicked state. God, by His grace and mercy, elects some people according to His divine purpose that has nothing to do with what we do. Moses, Jeremiah, Abraham, Paul are a few examples of God coming to them, not them coming to God.

The rest God passes by; why we don't know. Two people hear the same sermon, one believes and one doesn't. God gave one faith. The other He did not. There is nothing that we have that hasn't been given to us. That is how God works.

Everyone God wants saved will be saved.