Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)
Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: apostolic; catholic; fascinatedwcatholics; givemerome; obsessionwithrome; papistsrule; pope; protestant; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,381-3,4003,401-3,4203,421-3,440 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
Comment #3,401 Removed by Moderator

To: MarkBsnr
[.. But preaching the Word of God falsely, that is surely going to be rewarded in the everlasting lake of fire. ..]

Probably not.. HIJACKING the ministry of the Holy Spirit by rote worship of clergy, Will however.. The clergical spirit is Satanic.. it murdered the Lord of Mercy..

3,402 posted on 08/20/2007 9:11:47 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3384 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Are you possibly saying that if the Catholic Church was satanic, that it could kill the Holy Spirit?

I think that I’ll step back here and let the Holy Spirit have a crack at you without me in the way.


3,403 posted on 08/20/2007 9:14:44 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3402 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[.. The only universal language at that point was Latin. ..]

Not true.. Koine greek and patois of it was..

3,404 posted on 08/20/2007 9:16:02 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3390 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; D-fendr
does a prisoner by his will earn a pardon? No, the pardon is by the grace of the Judge

It's a good analogy, except that you hold that once you are pardoned you are also reformed and can never end up in jail again!

Not only that, the Reformed theology maintains that we were sentenced and parodned before we even existed! And that some can keeeon sinning and will never be sentenced again.

While others are just "out of luck," created for refuse, and destined to sit in jail for all eternity—that too by the "grace" of the Judge.

The only thing that is worse than an imitation is a bad imitation.

3,405 posted on 08/20/2007 9:16:06 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3359 | View Replies]

Comment #3,406 Removed by Moderator

To: hosepipe

During the Dark Ages?

Not by my understanding. Do you have different understanding?


3,407 posted on 08/20/2007 9:17:45 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3404 | View Replies]

To: All
LISTEN UP.

This ugly childish troublemaking behavior will stop here and now and there will be suspensions or worse.

3,408 posted on 08/20/2007 9:21:01 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3407 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

***Not only that, the Reformed theology maintains that we were sentenced and parodned before we even existed!***

Yes, that is what we believe, based on scripture. God is in control of everyhing. He is the Potter, we are the clay. Some he made for noble purposes, others he made to be thrown away.


3,409 posted on 08/20/2007 9:21:42 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3405 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Oh come on.

Don’t you mean that those theological itinerants sitting by the side of the highway begging for alms and getting ritually kicked in the face are really God’s itinerants?

I think that we both know how homicidal and sadistic was the individual who proposed that theological point. I really don’t get why the average person would find it attractive unles he was as sadistic as was the proposer.


3,410 posted on 08/20/2007 9:21:51 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3405 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[.. Are you possibly saying that if the Catholic Church was satanic, that it could kill the Holy Spirit? / I think that I’ll step back here and let the Holy Spirit have a crack at you without me in the way. ..]

NO,,, The Holy Spirit is a Spirit.. flesh cannot touch it/him..
You are not in the way, you are not in control..
The Roman Catholic Church is fleshly, earthy, mostly dirty, temporal..
As are most protestant churches.. its all in Revelation..

3,411 posted on 08/20/2007 9:23:19 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3403 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

The Holy Spirit is directing everything. Do you really believe that the church is infallible?


3,412 posted on 08/20/2007 9:23:45 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3399 | View Replies]

Comment #3,413 Removed by Moderator

To: hosepipe

I don’t understand.


3,414 posted on 08/20/2007 9:25:18 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3411 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
[.. During the Dark Ages? / Not by my understanding. Do you have different understanding? ..]

I am not follwing you mark?..

3,415 posted on 08/20/2007 9:26:02 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3407 | View Replies]

Comment #3,416 Removed by Moderator

To: MarkBsnr
[.. I don’t understand. .]

True..

3,417 posted on 08/20/2007 9:27:25 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3414 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
It didn’t. It affirmed what the churches had been using all along and it wasn’t “The Church”. It was many churches who sent representatives to the council to affirm the canon. The standard was the scriptures, not the “Church”.

You are re-wiritng the history. but then Protestants make up their theology; why not history as well? It's pathetic.

It affirmed what the churches had been using all along and it wasn’t “The Church

You are wrong. St. Ignatius wrote as early as 105 AD that there is only one, Catholic Church, not many 'churches.' St. Justin martyr certainly did not speak of "churches" and neither did St. Irenaeus, or St. Clement of Alexandria, and so on. The canon as we know today was first proposed by St. Athanasius in the middle of the 4th century. It was accepted by the Church as a whole, as a standard, 30years later. That means that before 360 AD there was NO standard Christian Canon as we know it today and that many books we consider inspired today were either not listed or recognized as inspired by many churches prior to that.

Those are facts. Then there is Protestant fantasy.

3,418 posted on 08/20/2007 9:27:49 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3400 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Too difficult to understand, eh?


3,419 posted on 08/20/2007 9:29:23 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3395 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

There is only one church? Which one, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, or what?


3,420 posted on 08/20/2007 9:31:34 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3418 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,381-3,4003,401-3,4203,421-3,440 ... 13,161-13,166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson