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.

[P-Marlowe]

You rang?

In this case I might just recommend it.

[stfassisi]

Do you believe in everything that Strong’s Concordance says?

Do you think Strong’s God inspired?

[D-fendr]

ROFLOL!

[kosta50]

Er, the critical density of the universe consists of 5% ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy

Er, you speak of "dark matter" and "dark enegry" as some "facts." They are hypothetical  constructs, necessary plug-ins in the formula to balance out the equation. They have yet to be discovered. They "exist" only in the minds of those who are desperately trying to save the failed relativity theory.

We've been through this before. Nerds like Hawkings has already admitted to having been wrong, after 20 years or so of egotistical claims to the contrary. Astrophyiscs is an expensive toyland for immature adults who can't hold a regular job. It does absolutely nothing for the good of the world.

[stfassisi]

Do you throw out the word “Agape” from your Bible because it does not originate from Hebrew and Strong’s?

[stfassisi]

Strong’s concordance can be just as corrupt as Wikipedia

[kosta50]

I  am a Christian too. :) My faith can be found in all of the Bible, of which the Gospels are an extremely important part. I don't see any part of the Bible as being "less true" than any other part

God's revelation was gradual and became full with Christ. Gospels define Christianity. The rest of the scripture must be interpreted through the Gospels and must be in full agreement with the Gospels.

In the Apostolic Church all scripture is equally true, even if being only a foreshadowing of Christ, and all scriptures are not ranked the same. In the Orthodox Church, the Divine Liturgy involves readings from the Epistles (a separate book that can be found at the cantor's stand); it is read by a lay person. The Gospels are read after that. The Gospels are at the altar, as a separate book. The Gospels can be read only by a priest/bishop. The homily that follows is based on the Gospel readings, never on the Epistle.

The Divine Liturgy also has a couple of Psalms (102, 145, Septuagint) incorporated into the text. Psalmology is heavily represented in the worship services during the Great Lent and the entire Old Testament is read in that period leading to Paschal Sunday (aka "Easter" Sunday). Also the evening services (vespers) include Old Testament readings.

Thus, the Church clearly considers all of the Bible to be inspired (since that which is read publicly in the Church is considered inspired and holy), but it is also clear that the Church does not place equal weight on all parts of the Bible and that the Gospels stand out as the crown jewel of the Holy Scripture, and have for at least 1,700 years.

It is my understanding that the 1st century Church considered only Tanakh (aka Old Testament)  as scripture. 

[stfassisi]

What is your opinion on the serpent seed doctrine the belief that Eve had sex with satan and produced Cain?

[stfassisi]

Do you reject the serpent seed lie- that Eve had sex with satan and produced Cain?

Orthodox certainly reject this heretical belief!

[Diego1618]

Do you believe in everything that Strong’s Concordance says?

I haven't read it all....have you?

Do you think Strong’s is God inspired?

Of course not. Do you believe your Magesterium is God inspired? Of course you do.

Therein lies our difference. [Mark 7:13]

[stfassisi]

How do you know your belief is God inspired?

Show the writings of Christian History that agree with you ?

.....Or is the God you believe in so weak that there is no historical data to back up your wild claims such as the serpent seed doctrine?

[Forest Keeper]

God's love is fully revealed by Jesus Christ in His living word found in Gospels. As Christians we must interpret the rest of the Scripture through the Gospels, always mindful that the rest is a gradual revelation leading to Christ.

Since the consequences to the rest of scripture are indeed dire here, where does this rule come from? A Gospel-only approach nullifies much of the full revelation by God we are given in scriptures.

[P-Marlowe]

Here is one verse that should put this whole Kenite idea to rest and the idea that Cain was the son of Satan. Read it slowly and carefully:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Genesis 4:1 KJV)

Lets read it slowly together:

And Adam knew Eve his wife.

Ok lets pause here, ok? Now think about this before you answer.... who is the one who "knew" Eve? Was it the serpent? Was Adam the serpent? Well, in my book it says it was Adam and NOT the serpent and NOT Satan.

Ok, lets continue, shall we?

and she conceived, and bare Cain

So what happened after ADAM knew Eve? Think about it before you answer. Ready? "and she conceived, and bare Cain". Wow, just a natural birth following the usual and customary marital relations between a husband and a wife. No mystery there.

Now what does Eve do after Cain is born? Does she confess to her illicit relationship with Satan? No, she says that she received a son from WHOM? Again think about it before you answer. Who gave Eve a son? Look in your KJV. There it is. Cain was a gift from THE LORD!

So are you ready to admit that the Bible says your silly doctrine about Cain being the offspring of Satan is a false teaching? Or are you going to continue to be "carried about with divers and strange doctrines."

Ping this is the strangest doctrine I have ever seen on Free Republic. Without a doubt. There is a good reason why mainstream churches don't teach it. BECAUSE IT IS HERETICAL!

There is also a good reason why White Supremists believe it. Because it feeds on their idiotic ideas of inferior races.

So study Genesis 4:1. It's not that complicated. It refutes everything you believe about the Kenites.

[Alamo-Girl]

IOW, the harder science works to explain everything and disprove GOD, they actually do the reverse. Ultimately, all we have to do is insist on objectivity.

Precisely so, dear brother in Christ!

Thank you for your encouragements!

[kosta50]

I'm starting to get the idea that when you specifically ask for Biblical evidence, you will only consider quotes from the Gospels

No, but the interpretation must be in an agreement with the spirit of the Gospels.

It's not cherry-picking, it's a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven. Being "invited" refers to the outward call of God to all men. Being "chosen" refers to the inward call of the elect

Yes, it's a parable but the true message behind it is that they were not chosen because of the way they presented themselves, not because God's didn't want them. God accepts all those those present themselves accordingly. If we get rejected it is our doing not God's.

They did condemn themselves. They were of the "Lord, Lord" crowd. They believed themselves deserving, but were not

Thank you! I am glad we actually agree on more than Holy Trinity! But, then you will turn around and tell me that God made them disrespectful and the whole agreement is out the window! :)

Foreknowledge and predestination are inseparable

They are but they are not the same. His foreknowledge does not make or force our choices. He incorporated our choices in his plan.

The Fall was predestined which caused all followers to be born into original sin

How can something that is predestined be a "sin?" Genetics predestine you to have certain color of hair, skin, height, etc. None of which is your doing or within your control, and you are not accountable for any of them. Sin, by definition, is separation from God. If that is not our will but God's, then it is not a sin. Again, He foreknows our choices and He incorporated them into His plan. He is not the cause of our sin.

God did nothing but leave Pharaoh alone, as He does when the sins of others are also a part of His plan

Precisely. So we can't say that God "hardened" Pharaoh's heart. He simply knew how Pharaoh's heart will be. God used the choices He foreknew Pharaoh would make and incorporated them in His plan.

I don't know what you mean by "credit" here. God created the reprobate, knowing they would be so...What exactly is the evil that God did or is responsible for here?

The evil would be to make them with the desire and intention that they become wicked and end up in hell. The intention counts, FK. God actually gives everyone a chance to repent before they die. That means that He can [cf Isa 38:5] change our fate based on that condition—repentance—which is clearly His choice.

By your reading, it appears that either man controls his own destiny, OR God is the author of evil

Man most definitely controls his destiny. We condemn ourselves with our own choices and have no one to blame but ourselves. In order to be saved we must come to God. In either case it is incumbent on us to do something that will affect our destiny. Man cannot save himself, but he can jump on the right train and God will save Him. 

As Marlowe recently said: "God is in control, and man is responsible". I see no problem with this statement and agree with it completely. Yet, some believe it is a contradiction

Only a lawyer could say something like that.  :)

If God is in control, then all evil is accountable to Him

No, because God is not a cause of evil. There is no room for evil in God. Evil is what God is not. God cannot be the source of sin because sin is separated from God. And causing someone to reject God and commit sin would be evil. God is in control because he knows everything and His plan incorporates all our choices.  He cannot be surprised, so He is in control but not in control of our choices or else they are not our choices, but His. The only way we can be responsible while He is in control is if our choices are free and independent of God's will (by His permission, of course).

Well, if the concept of preexistence of the soul is pitted as being contrary to creationism, then obviously I believe in creationism. However, that does not obfuscate verses like: Jer 1:5 : "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

And st. Paul says something similar...all this means is that God (fore)knew them before they were born. That doesn't mean Jeremiah's soul existed and was waiting for his body to be formed.

The Eastern Orthodox in fact hold to the view that God created only Adam's soul and that his soul (now affected by the Fall) is passed on from generation to generation by the parents (even of course received Adam's soul through his living flesh and bone). This way we inherit the consequences of Adam's Fall (mortality), as Adam's soul was mortally wounded and destined to die. In other words, we are born spiritually ill. Put another way, our will is defective (the archaic meaning of which is—wounded!).

The predominant Roman Catholic and I believe mainline Protestant belief is that God creates a soul at the moment of conception. This means that Creation is not complete! This also raises the question at which point does our soul then become defective due to the effects of the ancestral sin.  Neither this nor the Gnostic teaching of the pre-existence of the souls provides adequate answer. One thing is certain: God does not create a defective soul!

The problem with the Gnostic (particularly Origen's) teachings of the pre-existing souls is that this was tied to the Gnostic belief that rebellious angels were thrown to earth and imprisoned in a body as punishment! The pre-existence of the souls also leads to another heretical idea, namely that of re-incarnation which the Church anathematized along with Origen.

The idea of us being His instruments is found here, for example: Acts 9:15

That, of course, is anecdotal. We know that Acts and Galatians are not always in perfect harmony.

2 Tim 2:21 : If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master

This is essentially different from the claims made in Acts. Here the individual is cleansing himself which means that it is he, the individual, who makes himself an instrument available to God, not that God made him one.

But what is good? I think we both know that what God thinks is "good" is different than what we would normally think is good

Read the Gospels.  :)

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm tickled pink that post was helpful to you, dear brother in Christ!

Thank you oh so very much for all of your encouragements!

[kosta50]

He foreknew them and He tells us that the "foreknowing" is before they are in the womb: Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee..."

That doesn't mean he "pre-made" him.  He foreknew of him, what he will be like; but Jeremiah soul did not pre-exist his body.

I also am Christian. Part of our bible, it's very foundation is Jewish. You cannot divorce yourself from everything that Bible teaches nor do you have to imitate them

I don't think so. Jews believe that one makes himself acceptable to God by works, not by faith. Christians believe we can never make ourselves worthy of salvation.

We are brothers and sisters with the same God

By that logic, the Muslims believe in the same God. Jewish God is not a Christian God. Allah is not a Christian God. It takes little imagination to see that Christian God is different than either the YHWH or Allah in how Christians, Jews and Muslims experience their God.

Their eyes will be opened to Christ being the Messiah

We certainly pray and hope the whole world comes to Christ, not just the Jews. Personally, I doubt they will ever consider it. To them Christianity i sa bogus cult; after Jamnia (90 AD) they cursed Jesus of Nazareth, and commanded others to do the same. I am not sure if they still do.

So, he has fallen from grace but he is, or was, allowed to be in the garden, to tempt Jesus on earth and also to be in heaven talking to God (Job)

So, Satan was back in heaven  after his fall from grace? LOL!

[editor-surveyor]

you speak of "dark matter" and "dark enegry" as some "facts." They are hypothetical constructs, necessary plug-ins in the formula to balance out the equation. They have yet to be discovered. They "exist" only in the minds of those who are desperately trying to save the failed relativity theory.

Actually, they are only necessary to save the foolish "unbounded" universe. There never was a reason (other than ruling out God's word) to assume an unbounded condition. If you revert to Humphreys' bounded, spheroid universe, the need for such constructs disappears completely. As a bonus, Humphreys' universe fits the declarations and known facts of God's word like a glove. It solves the ridiculous old earth and old universe nicely through the then useful General Relativity, since the gravitational dilation of time explains the appearance of age through the expansion of space. His equations have been attacked 'adhominem' style, but never refuted. (although the God-haters claim that adhominem attack is sufficient to refute anything that agrees with God's word)

[Forest Keeper]

Do I understand it, though, that SBC believes that baptized sinners (no matter how grievous the sin) get that pass into Heaven?

Actually, SBC believes that Baptism has nothing whatsoever to do with salvation! :) God commands baptism and so it is very important. We see it as a public obedience to Him. From the BFM:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Perhaps surprisingly, THAT'S the entire section on baptism. There's nothing about salvation. Now, concerning grievous sin, as the quote says, we believe that God promises us that those who are truly His will persevere to the end under His guarantee. One real possibility is that if someone is so obstinate in his sinning, but he is nevertheless a true believer, God will simply "take him home" if you get the drift. :) Presumably this would take care of the serial killer problem.

What does impaired grace and comfort mean?

It just means that when we step out of line here on earth, that God will discipline us back into line. God sustains us in all things, so for example, if I start stealing from the boss, then God might "artificially" make things happen for me to be found out, when I would have normally gotten away with it. I'll lose the grace and comfort of my job. "Grace" is not used in the salvational sense here.

[Marysecretary]

I disagree with you about the Jews. Don’t you give God any credit for being able to work in the hearts of the Jewish people? Good heavens, Kosta. He’s working in the hearts of the Muslims and Jews as we speak. People who are in the know, i.e., missionaries and pastors in foreign lands, are experiencing that even now. God cannot be put in a little box of our making. HE is the one who will change their hearts and many WILL and ARE coming to Christ. You don’t hear about it because for many it would mean death (for the Muslims), but God is at work.