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.

Whoa, stop the tape. Free will is an illusion to them?

TO them, it is all very real. When we decide for Christ we perceive that we made a free will decision. Very few, at that time, understand that the reason for that choice was that we had been predestined to make it long before we were born. I sure didn't. :)

They had the 'experience' of free will, but weren't able to refuse.. changing their heart so that they come willingly.

Right, in the positive sense God makes us an offer we can't refuse. :) He changes our heart so that the "choice" is clear and plain. No one is dragged kicking and screaming into Christianity because there is never a need.

Correct my chronology here, please. But I believe you'll still have the same problems, IMHO.

I don't think I follow. :)

You are welcome. SS Cyril and methodius created a masterpiece with a language that was not their own (they were Greeks). But since there weremany Slavs in and around Thessaloniki, they learned their language (Old Slavonic) in order to preach Gospel to them, as they were not ready to learn Greek or Latin.

The Saints sought and received permission from the Pope to introduce Slavonic Liturgy in Moravia, since it was under his jurisdiction. They met stiff opposition from Frankish clergy who vehemently opposed any Mass in the Western Patriarchate that was not in Latin.

St. Cyril was actually impisoned for his work for a short time. But thanks to the brothers, Christianity was brought to a vast number of Slavic tribes. Today, all Eastern churches of Slavonic background worship in the same liturgical language SS Cyril and Methodius created 1,300 years ago. So, we know that our ancestors worshiped the same way as we do.

Thanks for your reply:

TO them, it is all very real. When we decide for Christ we perceive that we made a free will decision..Very few, at that time, understand that the reason for that choice…

To them it is real, but the real reason they choose what they choose, they're unaware of. They make a choice unaware of why they are making the choice? They are either chosing in the dark or the choice is an illusion. If there's some way that's making a choice in our normal sense of free will, please elaborate.

God makes us an offer we can't refuse.

Only Vito Corleone would call that free will. :)

The two-fold ministry of Do'ing and Speaking is performed by literally everyone.. Even when you SHUT UP you(we) are preaching..

So very, very true, dear 'pipe! Our actions reveal who we are.... Words alone don't "cut it." "By their works shall ye know them".... There is wisdom in these words....

And I think we need to take these words to heart, especially in this day and age. There are many today who really do seem to believe that "rhetoric" trumps reality. Spin a good enough story, and keep repeating it, and get all your friends to repeat it, too, and voila! The expectation is the world will come into conformance with the story sooner or later.

But then again, look at the "works" such people actually perform. There is a often a tremendous gulf between the high-sounding words and the actual deeds as judged by their practical effects....

BTW, such operations used to be understood as magical, the works of sorcerers. Nowadays, you can be a respected scientist, or politician, or judge, and engage in such magic with a free hand. And the public just laps it up.

Let's coin a term for this: demonic hypocrisy. The "progressives" out there -- "progressive" because they seek to supplant God and His order so to refashion the world in their image -- thrive on it....

Well, FWIW -- my two cents.

Thank you so much for writing, my dearest brother in Christ!

Here’s my summary view, FWIW:

Predestination, as you express it, has some appeal. It fits some gaps, it explains some scriptures, it make the most sense in some constructs and situations.

However, it runs into some brick walls. Most notably in free will which explains some other scriptures well and fits the larger views of Jesus’s ministry.

The problem as I see it is when we oppose two options: Total Predestination and total Free Will. It becomes as if we can look at it either/or and whichever we pick leaves some problems in the other. So the options or the terms/concepts are problematic. Or the answer cannot be known using the sphere and tools we’re applying.

When you have a question phrased, “is it either A or B” and neither answers fully, then the problem is in the question.

We either do or we don’t [choose Him], but I don’t believe God CHOOSES those to follow Him. Now He may KNOW because He’s omiscient WHO will follow Him but does He pick them out? I don’t believe that.

As Marlowe correctly points out, there are multiple Biblical examples of God specifically choosing specific individuals. There are also all the predestination passages. (I think I posted some of them, but let me know if you didn't see them.) That God chooses us is an example of HOW MUCH He loves His elect. God leaves nothing to chance. If God took the hands-off approach, then that would show that it really doesn't matter to Him who comes to Him, on an individual basis. I think His love for those the Father has given Him is much stronger. So strong, in fact, that He guarantees that His children come to Him.

John 10:27-30 : 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

Goes perfectly with my tractor-beam comparison of the Reformed approach to this issue: a bunch of rag dolls being pulled by an invisible leash. Some created for comfort, others for a dumpster. And God created humans in His image you say?

Well, if being a wholly owned rag doll is what it takes for God to guarantee my going to Heaven, then this is one very happy rag doll. I am delighted to be owned. If I was responsible to save myself over and over throughout life, then I would never get a good night's sleep. :) ...... How is my view inconsistent with being made in God's image? How much of God's sovereignty does He have to surrender to man for us to be created in His image?

It's more like being freed from some third-world prison and being told by the one who opened the gate "follow me, I will lead you to safety." Some will be doubtful and believe that there is no way and stay put, others will take a "shortcut" because they know "better." Either way, everyone makes a decision.

Then the one opening the gate has no love for anyone since he has the power to ensure that those he leads make it to safety. Here, the gatekeeper simply opens the gate and doesn't care whether any of them are saved or not. Some will wisely follow and some will not, but the one does not care which.

Your view is that the one who opens the gate picks those he wants and leaves others behind.

Yes, but this is no less "harsh" than your view, given the authority of the one opening the gate. The one is there to save his children, not everyone. God does choose. He didn't have to choose anyone, and we are thankful that He chose some.

But, according to your theology, those who don't hear His voice don't hear it because He doesn't want them to hear it! It's not their decision not to hear; it's His.

Yes, His children recognize the voice of the conductor and get on the train. Others do not recognize it as His and do not get on. Among the others, some only recognize their own voices, and some follow the voices of false conductors.

Kosta: No but by fulfilling the Great Commission Christians make salvation possible for others! Without us, they'd be lost for good. That's an awesome task He gave us!

FK: YIKES KOSTA! ...... Oh wait, you're only kidding. :) ...

KOSTA: No I am not kidding, FK. If those who hear our Great Commission would have been saved without being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, then why give us a "Great Commission?" Just so we have something to do?

Well, putting aside that baptism has nothing to do with salvation, I thought you were kidding because I've never heard you give credit to layman for the saving of others before. I've even seen you arguing against the belief that the Magisterium effectuates salvation. I thought that the "official" line on this was to agree with us, that only God does the saving. Fulfilling the Great Commission is important because it is in obedience to God to be used by Him in the carrying out of His saving work. But that work is all His, He just lets us watch sometimes.

I realize there were some people He chose for a particular mission or purpose, but for salvation? I don’t believe that at all.

Read your tagline.

Are you in control of your own salvation?

Assuming you did have a choice to follow Jesus, could you possibly follow him unless he grabbed you by the shirt and dragged you kicking and screaming into his kingdom?

He chose you for salvation. He chose Forest for salvation. Hopefully he chose me for salvation. What good reason can you give for him doing such a thing? Is it something we did? I suggest it is best not to speculate on any reason why God chose us, but to simply rejoice in the knowledge that he did.

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.