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.

“Kolo, either you can produce any quote from me in which I profess or indicate a belief in the Satan’s seed heresy, as you have attributed to me, or retract your comments with apology. If not, then it will be sure that you are not a person of integrity, honesty or honor.”

MLG, I have attributed nothing to you save very questionable, innovative theology for which you have provided ample evidence from an Orthodox pov. I have no idea at all if you believe that Eve and Satan had intercourse and produced Cain. The question I asked and about which you are complaining was one which had been asked several times of you by one or more other posters. To the best of knowledge you never answered the question. I don’t take that to be an indication of anything other than that for reasons sufficient to you you have chosen not to answer. Similarly, MLG, you should assume nothing because questions are asked of you. They are only questions, implying nothing. That sort of thing happens here.

This is an open thread, MLG. As I have noted before, its no place for sissies. I am not even remotely sorry that you are offended that I and one or more other posters asked you a question about your beliefs. There are all sorts of beliefs on FR that any of a number of us find odd, silly, heretical, even blasphemous. There’s little reticence about calling a spade a spade on these threads.

But, since you’ve made such an issue of that silly question, will you answer the question? If you won’t, just say so. :)

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

Well, that's certainly true considering the OT verse "My thoughts are not your thoughts and my ways are not your ways..." but then +Paul throws in the curve ball "But we have the mind of Christ!" [1 Cor 2:16]

On top of thet every Protestant claims the "indwelling [Holy] Spirit" (a phrase I can't for the life of me find in the Bible!) we know the mind of God!

And then comes HD and says "it is impossible to know the mind of God."

me: "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."

FK: "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."

Well, we know that at death, the soul/spirit departs the physical body, therefore as a disembodied spirit it is nonsensical to speak in terms of location for non-coporeal entities, so what we deduce from Scripture is more a state of relationship rather than location. However, in the instances of both the just and the unjust, the natures are ratified for all eternity, the just as new creations in Christ are ratified as no longer posessing a sin nature, with the opposite being true for the unjust. The just enter into the presence of the Lord, being one of experiencing the Love of God while the unjust experience the Wrath of God, as disembidied spirits.

At the Return of the Lord, both the Just and the unjust are then resurrected to bodies prepared for eternity. At that point, then it is sensical to speak in terms of location, for both will have their spirits reunited with coporeal bodies. The unjust will have the overwhelming desire to sin, but without any way to bring that desire to fruition.

Kolo, either you can produce any quote from me in which I profess or indicate a belief in the Satan's seed heresy, as you have attributed to me

Kolo didn't attribute anything to you Missey. You are making a straw man. He simply asked you a question, which you culd have answered as "yes" or "know" or "I don't know." One of our Catholic posters asked Kolo and me if we believed in Purgatory. Was that "slanderous?" Of course not.

The rules are clear. If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Open forums are open. If you prefer like-minded people stay with coccus posts which are, as the RM explained, "safe" from opposing views.

RM is busy reading all our post, and is doing a great job keeping us in line, within rules (which are fair and apply to all equally). Please cease this nonsense of "telling" on people every time someone asks you a question.

I have been in and around Christian beliefs and arguements for over 30 years. I have never heard of this theory/belief.

Why would anyone even ask such a question is what I want to know? If a small group of people from somewhere believe this, fine, but it doesn’t represent one one thousandth of one percent of those who claim Christ as their savior. The question was asinine. Silly. Of no substance whatsoever.

***One of our Catholic posters asked Kolo and me if we believed in Purgatory.***

The belief/idea of purgatory has been around for many years, and known to almost everyone. An acceptable question.

The theory brought up was unknown to almost every one. That is like asking if you believe that blue cars save more gas than brown cars. Not only have you never thought about it, you don’t even know if the premise is viable.

me: 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. 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.

Prior to resurrection, the spirits are not located in spacial dimensions as we know them, so we speak of heaven in terms being in relationship with the Lord. After the resurrection, when our spirits are reunited with real, literal, material bodies prepared for eternity, immortal and in union with God and the saints, then heaven will be not only be relationship but also "place", as the Scriptures say;

Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells---2 Peter 3:13

Therefore, the renewal of creation, which is Redeemed from the curse of sin, is "heaven", as well as having the physical Christ within our midst, our most prized, and worthy Lord for whom we forsake all for, adoring Him to the utmost and desiring Him above all, with whom we will be with for all eternity. So, paradise lost, becomes paradise renewed, except better than what Adam had, for we will have the Living, Physical Christ with us.

HD: 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

D-fendr: All are born reprobate then? And then some elected?

That depends on who you are talking to D-fender. You have to remember that each Protestant is his/her own "church" or "pope" and makes up "theology" as one sees fit (and attributes it to the "indwelling spirit" and the mind of Christ no less).

Some Protestants will tell you that God created the reprobate and the saved from before foundations of the world and that each "elect" knows personally that he or she is saved. Others will tell you that one doesn't know for sure or that God selects some according to His divine purpose...which sort of trashes the whole idea of "before foundations of the world" formula.

The one thing they agree on is that God is the source of good and evil and call it "Christianity."

It still sounds like you think it is proper to lump all Protestants together as being under one roof, the way you are.

In reality, the EOs and RCs don't "agree" on everything either, they have factions, fractures, disagreements, sects, etc as well.

They may agree on dogmatic doctrines, even though that isn't really true either, but Protestants also agree on "essential doctrines", which we also consider to be dogmatic doctrines which cannot be denied and be legitimately Christian.

So, the false claim of EOs and RCs that Protestants disagree on everything is a dishonest misrepresentation, an intellectual dishonesty that is common to EOs and RCs throughout the history of Christianity.

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?

And where did you get that idea from. Certainly it was not the Scriptures, which you consider to be myths.

We're back up to 33,000 now.

The figure I hear most often is 80,000.

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.

You left out a few, such as the timing of the Paschal Feast, as well as a multitude of other feast days, apophaticism, the nature of the Atonement, and a host of many others.

One can conclude that they really don't agree on much of anything.

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?

I have no idea where hell is, I just know that it exists as a place. The "up" "down" contrast could very well have been for our benefit of understanding, since the real truth could be incomprehensible to us. One possibility would be that the spiritual realm is in a dimension we cannot now perceive. I have no problem with that idea.

And scriptures ARE clear that Heaven and hell are places, as opposed to theoretical concepts.

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?

As MLG was saying, if Christ has a body, then it takes up space and must exist "somewhere". I have no idea where Heaven is, any more than hell, but the same thinking as above applies.

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?

Well, this is a family forum so I probably shouldn't do that. :) But seriously, of course God's love for His children is beyond what we may be able to describe, however, we are given what we NEED to know about it in the scriptures.

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 dimension (of our existence), or to describe except as allegory. Literalism is a sure way to miss the point.

But I think we have to assume that when we ARE given allegory in scripture, what we are given is at least close to the actual reality. Once we declare something as allegory, and then interpret it to mean the exact opposite of what the allegory says, then I think the point is literally missed. An example of this on your side is that God never kills.

Kosta: 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?

MLG: And where did you get that idea from. Certainly it was not the Scriptures, which you consider to be myths

The OT and NT state that hell is a "place" by all accountd in earth (underground). The NT also speaks of Christ coming "down" through the clouds and ascending "up" through the clouds into heaven.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question with a simple "yes" or "no?"

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.