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.

***Since every protestant is his or her own ‘pope’ it is impossible to say “some” Protestant brelieve such and such because it is entirely possible that all of them do.***

You seem to forget that Protestants do not need a “pope” because they can go straight to the source and pray to God the Father. They also have the Bible that they can read for themselves without a particular slant from a controlling influence, so a “pope” is not necessary.

Your posting is most interesting.

My point is that each of the Protestant denominations or individuals takes upon himself for either himself or the group the authority of determining theology and doctrine.

I don’t understand the vehemence, nor do I understand the off-base conclusion.

I’m already in for the long haul, but thanks kindly for the invite.

One of the problems with a once saved, always saved style of philosophy is a human-typical complaisence that may set in. If I understand that I am answerable for my sins and that my actions will lead me straight to hell unless, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, might I be more inclined to lead a holy life than someone who figures that they’re already in no matter what they do thereafter?

Your posting is most interesting.

My point is that each of the Protestant denominations or individuals takes upon himself for either himself or the group the authority of determining theology and doctrine.

I don’t understand the vehemence, nor do I understand the off-base conclusion.

Your understanding is incorrect. Your conclusion is off-base.

You hunt for a dictionary definition of "Pope" and post it as absolute proof. I publish the Catholic definition of "Pope" and I am off-base.

And, for the record, there was no vehemence express or implied in my response. I do reserve the right to disagree with you. Is that ok?

I understand your position, I disagree with it.
I am so overjoyed by the justification that I have in Jesus, that I want to do those things that God has put before me. Not that I need to do them for my salvation, but doing them because I love God so much. I have assurance that no matter what, God has a place for me in heaven. That is why I rejoice in him.

I assume you are a father... What would your children have to do for you to quit loving them? Could they ever get to that point? We may chastize them, withhold benefits, even punish them, but we don’t stop loving them. It is the same with God. He sent his Son to die so that we can be loved by him. Praise God.

:::And, for the record, there was no vehemence express or implied in my response. I do reserve the right to disagree with you. Is that ok?:::

It’s quite okay.

And, to a certain extent, you have given me supporting evidence. Thank you.

I am the father of 6 wonderful kidlets. I don’t know what it would take for me to stop loving them, but I wouldn’t abandon them.

I guess that that alone would invalidate this analogy for me.

That’s the whole point, God doesn’t abandon those he adopts, either. He is in it for the long haul, just as you are there for your kids, regardless of what they do.

God isn’t sitting there hoping man will choose him, he makes the choice to love the ones he does. You don’t wait for your children to love you, you demonstrate your love to them every day.

God sent his Son, Jesus, to die for his own (the Elite Elect, as you like to say) so that they can come to him and do his will. Without Jesus, no man can come to God. Once a man is adopted, he will never be lost, ever.

You might think this is terrible. I don't. Common belief in God and living a (relatively) good life is enough for me

Common blief in God, as revealed by Christ, and a life in abundance of blesisngs, even when we think otherwise, is more than enough for me.

If you could claim with any degree of certainty that Catholics and Orthodox live their lives 100% according to the "official" teaching and do not choose what to believe and practice you'd have a case

The Church is made up of sinners, not saints. If we are perfect, we need not be in church. If we have nothing to confess and nothing to repent of, we don't need the Eucharist—or a Savior for theat matter.

The idea is that Catholics and Orthodox are at various stages trying understand and know and believe 100% of official doctrine. Some are trying harder than others. And, you are right, some choose not to. But they are not making up their own theology.

Baloney!

No, just ham and cheese. There is no way to know what a Protestant believes based on his or her denomination. Protestantism is anything goes. You never know what you are dealing with.

Requires a vivid imagination, or better yet, an "authority" to tell you what to see

I agree.

One will nto arirve at any trinitarian forumla by focusing on St. Paul

Agree again! Yet when you ask other Protestants they will tell you just the opposite. I am quite certain that +Paul did not believe in the Holy Trinity because his gospel (as he called his preaching) does not reveal it.

Aren't you the person who gave the two citations from Paul to "prove" the Trinity in Scripture?

I did, but it was borrowed from a Protestant poster who believed it was a "proof." :)

***I am quite certain that +Paul did not believe in the Holy Trinity because his gospel (as he called his preaching) does not reveal it. ***

I am confused. Paul continually talks of the Spirit. Just as he talks of the Father and the Son. In fact, Romans 8 is all about the Spirit of God.

Protestantism is anything goes.

Catholicism/Orthodox is show and pretend. Tell the good story. Live any way you wish. This snotty claim is not indicative of good, practicing Catholics/Orthodox. It is simply a non truth meant to belittle and put down another group. Come to think of it, just like you did.)

BTW, I was brought in a mixed Protestant/Catholic environment. My extended family group was split about 50-50. Some of them got along and some hated each other simply because of their religion. The major difference: The Protestants were the religious ones.

:::God doesn’t abandon those he adopts, either. He is in it for the long haul, just as you are there for your kids, regardless of what they do.:::

But that’s where the analogy stops. I fathered those kids; I made them. I don’t abandon any of them.

Aren’t the kidlets wonderful?

My sainted wife and I decided that we wanted more than one child; the rest have just come naturally. The Good Lord has blessed us abundantly. And continues to do so.

My oldest is 18; hopefully has enough restraint to keep it where it belongs until marriage.

Ah, you are refering to the fact that God made some destined for hell. Well, I can’t do anything about that. Either God IS in control of all men’s destiny, or he isn’t in control of any. God chooses whom he will love forever, and whom he will send to hell. That’s the way it is. God is in control.

***My oldest is 18; hopefully has enough restraint to keep it where it belongs until marriage.***

Must be male :>)

My wife, shortly after we were married, had uterine cancer. We were given one year to have a child, then everything came out. Maybe that is why we work so hard for the children. We have a puppet ministry that we have done since about 1980. That and SS and VBS, and other kid attracting functions have kept us very busy with the children.

:::There is no way to know what a Protestant believes based on his or her denomination. Protestantism is anything goes. You never know what you are dealing with.:::

There are some that I have met, including a number here that have reasonably stable belief systems. But the majority of those that I have personally interacted with, and those denominations that I have gone through their online doctrines, tend to variability, often extreme.

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.