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.

AG, I absolutely love that post/essay.

This is an absolute gem:

The bottom line is that they all rely on the geometry for physical causation and ...

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

I used this quote with my Sunday School class this morning. It hit me between the eyes at about 5 AM, and it STUCK. (And I said it came from someone so much more able to explain this than I ever would be.)

My wife teaches Calculus. My Mom devours books. My favorite online females are the deepest of thinkers on subjects of physics, metaphysics, biology, genetics, etc.

I summed it up by saying: "Every single female I know is light years smarter than me."

All the ladies in the class "wisely" nodded their heads in agreement.

:>)

God did not betray us. We betrayed Him and continue to do so. He gives in abundance and we use it to do evil—in abundance. To say that He predestined us to evil, and with a purpose, is the ultimate betrayal of His love, imo.

Of course God does not betray us. :) But everything that has happened has done so according to His design:

Rom 8:28 : And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

That includes letting the serpent into the garden, that includes earthquakes, that includes allowing a young good Christian to get cancer and die early, etc. We may not understand it, but God's plan is WAY over our ability to comprehend.

People hide from God, FK. They try to shut Him out, to separate from Him, to forget Him (except when they curse Him), so that they may be "free" to do whatever they want to do.

That's exactly right.

But His knowing what we do and are about to do, and think, is not the same as twisting your arm to do it. He has included our decisions into His plan.

Then it's not God's plan, it is the plan devised by men and God. So when God says "I know the plans I have for you", He doesn't really mean it, He really means "I know the plans we will make together as partners".

If everything we do is according to His will, then why are we being judged?

Because we don't know the plan in advance, therefore we are accountable. For us everything is new, and we experience making our own decisions. God is in control and man is accountable. But if man is in control, then I wish you the best of luck. :)

Ps 33:10-11 : 10 The Lord foils the plans of the nations; he thwarts the purposes of the peoples. 11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

I'm confused.

Don't feel bad it's probably a result of my clumsy attempt to understand what you were saying.

I first stated: Even in vs. 3 that "light" isn't the sun. The sun wasn't formed until vs.14.

And you replied: I disagree.

It was verse 16 that the "two great lights" are made that we believe are the sun and the moon. I first postulated that the light in v. 3 was the big bang.

I still don't see where there was an age on earth between v. 1&2

You need to ask yourself why there is NO Historical Christian writings out there that supports this heretical serpent seed doctrine.

The Church fathers and Saints rejected this type heretical teachings.
The Church Fathers who decided Bible canon did not ever interpret scripture of satan and Eve producing cain

Are we to believe that somehow they were not guided by the Holy Spirit and God revealed this serpent seed nonsense to People like Arnold Murray and William Branham?

Neither live or lived lives close to the Saints and early Church Fathers! Murray is a false teacher a deceiver!

The truth is that you can not back up any of these wild claims from historical writings of Christians who read the same scriptures as you and Arnold Murray and NEVER concluded that satan had sex with Eve,

You are giving the devil power that God did NOT give him.

BTW
Jesus called Saint Peter satan once. Are you going to call Saint Peter offspring of the devil too?

Rebuke this belief of yours! It comes from the devil!

I will keep you in prayer!

I wish you a peaceful evening!

Sola Scriptura ain’t looking so good right now.:)

Allow me to give you a few more scriptures that may or may not change your mind - either way I hope you find them interesting.

Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, "He That soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38.The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

"Seed", as used in those verses is Strong's 4690 - Sperma, the male sperm, by impl. offspring Christ tells us that He isn't talking about spiritual children and that the devil sowed them.

Understanding this issue is very important. Of the seven churches in Revelation what did the only two churches Christ approve of do for that approval?

Rev.1:18 I Am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
2:9. (Smyrna) I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.
11.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.'
3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; 'These things saith He That is Holy, He That is True, He That hath the key of David, He That openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth;
9.Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

To know who the tares (Kenites - sons of Cain) are is to hold the Key of David in your hand and once you know, understand. That cannot be taken from you. Jesus warns us in those verses that He holds the keys to hell and death so listen to what He is saying. Both of those churches teach who the Kenites (sons of Cain) are and Jesus approved of only those two churches. How many churches today teach that?

You need to ask yourself why there is NO Historical Christian writings out there that supports this heretical serpent seed doctrine.

Paul: [2 Corinthians 11:2-3] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (Diego1618)

"Beguiled"....Strong's #1818. exapatao (ex-ap-at-ah'-o) "to seduce wholly"

From Jesus Christ Himself: (see post 2226)

Neither live or lived lives close to the Saints and early Church Fathers!

Paul taught it as well as Christ Himself. I don't know why the church fathers didn't.

Peter also taught about the 3 ages (I don't know if he taught about Cain)

2Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6.Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7.But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Peter is telling us that there was a heaven and earth of old and that world "that then was" perished. Our world did not perish in Noah's flood.

So....God has written what happened. It has always been there. I don't know why it hasn't been taught.

You are giving the devil power that God did NOT give him.

It seems to me that to know God's truth is to take power from him.

2Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness
17.We therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being, led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18.But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and forever. Amen.

Thank you for keeping me in your prayers......Ping

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD."

KJV [Genesis 4:1-2] And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Douay [Genesis 4:1-2] And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying: I have gotten a man through God. And again she brought forth his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd, and Cain a husbandman.

Eve was possibly carrying twins at this point as the Hebrew is somewhat specific here: "And she again" Strong's #3254. yacaph (yaw-saf')a primitive root; to add or augment (often adverbial, to continue to do a thing) conceive again. These twins had different fathers.....paternal twins, a somewhat common occurrence among prostitutes.

The angels can't procreate.

I think maybe Lucifer (Satan) may have been different.

Nevertheless.....where do we find Cain in Adam's genealogy?

[Genesis 5:1-5] This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Nowhere!

Cain has his own genealogy: [Genesis 4:17-26] And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Abel's death is mentioned again after Cain's genealogy and that is why Abel is not listed in Adam's genealogy. He was dead.

Are you implying that the Companion Bible is that Bible or are you implying that I am a racist?

The doctrines you are espousing on this thread and others are the same doctrines that are espoused by Christian Identity groups and cults like Watchman and Murray. They all use the Companion Bible in the same way Dispensationalists tend to use the Scofield Bible.

The doctine of Satan's seed leads to belief in racial superiority of the white race and the inferiority of other races. The doctrine of pre-existent spirits and the rewarding of the elect also leads to the idea that the White Race (particularly the Anglo Saxon race) are the elect of God.

I am not accusing you of being a racist, but the doctrines you espouse are touted by racist groups and the Bible you use is also touted by racist groups as the only true bible.

That should give you pause to think about the ramifications of these strange doctrines.

Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. (Hebrews 13:9 KJV)

Just look where these doctrines lead. Then, if you want to be a non-denominational Christian, get yourself attached to a more traditional non-Denominational Church. One that doesn't go off on these insane twisted doctrines that lead to no good.

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.