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 ... 3,501-3,5203,521-3,5403,541-3,560 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: D-fendr
I should have been considerate and remembered our previous discussion on this very point. My apologies for not being clear, dear brother in Christ!
3,521 posted on 08/21/2007 12:42:04 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3520 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
[.. Or to put it another way, if man tries to obtain spiritual understanding by Scriptures and his own reasoning - which is to say, without God's leading - he'll end up anthropomorphizing God - imagining a small "god" his puny, mortal mind can comprehend. ..]

So true dear sister.. A SMALL God.. which is better than NO God but such a rip off.. compared to the real thing.. An entity, a person, a lifeform, a doting parent/father, a loving friend, a help in trouble, a teacher with universal credentials, a force that can remodel a planet or human life with a word, somebody that cares, a King, a Potentate, a traveling priest, a personality of infinite demeanor... A BIG God..

3,522 posted on 08/21/2007 12:50:10 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3519 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

thanks.

I think the way I’ve heard it described is as transcendent - meaning both knowledge of the transcendent and knowledge transcending reason.

I believe it’s best to not oppose it to reason. Reason is not discarded and is used effectively to know some things in the area we call religion. However, some knowledge is beyond the tool of reason - not irrational, but transrational.

thanks for your reply.


3,523 posted on 08/21/2007 12:58:20 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3521 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
You know, people that have HIJACKED the Holy SPirits place in peoples lives..

And you would know about hijacking the Holy Spirit?

3,524 posted on 08/21/2007 1:01:49 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3514 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
[.. And you would know about hijacking the Holy Spirit? ..]

Pay attention.. you cannot hijack the Holy Spirit..
Hijacking the Holy Spirits place in a believers life.. is what I said..
Its an option of the believer to be lazy.. (as a couple of parables suggest)..
You can be a lazy believer.. You must want and ask for the Holy Spirits help..

3,525 posted on 08/21/2007 1:16:26 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3524 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; betty boop; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; .30Carbine; xzins; P-Marlowe; MarkBsnr; ...
The point should be that knowing the Scriptures is not enough.

Your post is a little out of context. Hospeipe was suggesting that multitudes of Christians who were illiterate until the 20th century and couldn't afford a bible didn't matter. This didn't come from the fatc that they could hear the Scripture in church, but because "Lucky for them that Jesus left the Holy SPirit to handle all that(literacy stuff).."

So, perhaps you and hosepipe need to discuss this. Hose obviously believes the Bible was not necessary for 2,000 years. Why would it be needed now?

We must be born again (John 3) - and indeed, the Spirit will lead us (John 15-17, Romans 8) There is no substitute

Which begs the question, what about those who (supposedly) have indwelling spirit but not the Bible? Are they deficient? If not, then is the Bible really necessary?

As I understand it, you, kosta50, have dismissed Paul as a “Gnostic” so you probably will also dismiss my testimony on the same basis. That is fine by me, go where God leads you

I didn't dismiss +Paul as a Gnostic; Gnostics claim him as one of their own. His claim to have received the conversion that made him instantly an Apostle is definitely Gnostic. Many other sayings attributed to +Paul are perceptibly Gnostic. He subordains the Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Father. Those are not exactly accurate Trinitatian concepts.

Nevertheless, many of my other brothers and sisters in Christ will probably agree that the language we speak to one another is spiritual per se and must be spiritually discerned. A non-Christian cannot "get it:"

That's all fluff, A-G and you know it. You have no more evidence or proof of Spirit than I do. Your belief is as good as mine.

3,526 posted on 08/21/2007 1:24:52 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3512 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; hosepipe; Alamo-Girl
So, then you really don't need to read the Bible at all, right? It's all that Gnostic inner knowledge that "guides"...?

Jeepers kosta, why does this have to be an "either/or situation?" It seems to me one needs the Bible; otherwide one's "inner knowledge" might tend to the Gnostic....

The Holy Spirit leads us; He does not contradict the Holy Scriptures, nor the revelation of Christ Incarnate, nor (I imagine) the Book of Creation. The Holy Spirit Himself is the fourth Revelation of God, one given to us subsequent to the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God's Revelations to us are four in number; and Truth cannot contradict Truth. In these Revelations, He tells us of Himself "truly, but not exhaustively." It is by the leading of the Holy Spirit that we are drawn into a fuller, more personal understanding of God's Revelations and their meaning for our life, now and eternally....

3,527 posted on 08/21/2007 1:31:10 PM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3508 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl
[.. That's all fluff, A-G and you know it. You have no more evidence or proof of Spirit than I do. Your belief is as good as mine. ..]

Interesting view in that post..
PROOF?.. of the Holy Spirit?.. You need proof?..
The Holy Spirit (if real) is not a moron..
Subject to no man or angel..

I would say challenge the Holy Spirit yourself to reveal himself..
He will not smush you.. honest.. He will be as real to you as you are with him..
Proof is available.. Go get it..

3,528 posted on 08/21/2007 1:39:33 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3526 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; betty boop; blue-duncan; Quix; .30Carbine; xzins; P-Marlowe; ...
Kosta, your argument is the exact same one the atheist makes -- "prove it."

A-G is correct. We "prove it" by reading and understanding and debating from Scripture because we have been given faith that the Holy Spirit leads our study.

You, for some reason, do not believe in the ability of Scripture to answer all and any questions worth asking and answering regarding our salvation and God's instructions for our lives. You, for some reason, place your faith in other men and fallible groups of men and an intricate and imperfect system of Greek nomenclature while decrying the ability of the Holy Spirit to move whom He wills where He wills.

We can and should debate our understandings, but it is foolish of you to deny the Holy Spirit's mission in our lives. As b-d pointed out, that's no small error.

3,529 posted on 08/21/2007 1:47:31 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3526 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
[.. It seems to me one needs the Bible; otherwide one's "inner knowledge" might tend to the Gnostic.... ..]

Good point... functionally illerate people might tend to get Gnostified.. Claiming "to know" when their knowing is limited.. Maybe we all are a bit Gnostified.. since none of us knows everything.. We know things but in varing amounts.. The old "observer problem"..

The poor old Gnostics sought after God as best they could probably..
I would say caution is advised when one crosses the path of someone that knows everything.. all truth.. i.e. the way to God without the Holy Spirit..

3,530 posted on 08/21/2007 1:56:29 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3527 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; xzins
Either way we go with evil in the world, we face quandries; however, the answers led to by determinism are quite worse.

Why is that worse? Is Satan running uncontrolled throughout our lives? Does God somehow stand by and watch the school bus run off the cliff when He would actually prefer that it stay on course? Is God powerless to stop the bus or does He not care to stop it or does He delight in not stopping it?

None of those things is true. God ordains all of life, the good and the bad.

For the condemned, the good in life rebukes them and the bad in life overcomes them.

For the acquitted, the bad in life is endurable and the good in life is all of Him and but a small glimpse of the glory that awaits His children.

We do not fully understand, but we cannot erase the sovereignty of God because we do not fully comprehend Him. We must begin by acknowledging it is all God's creation, one way or another, and through Jesus Christ He will lose none of His children.

It all comes down to trust.

3,531 posted on 08/21/2007 2:01:15 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3511 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

It all comes down to ‘faithing’ and by ‘faithing’ in the promises of God the Holy Spirit transforms the ‘faither’. For as Luther wrote, the law of works may be fulfilled only by faith, by Christ’s faith and the awakening of that ‘faithing’ in us for the rest of our life being transformed. To some it may appear foolish that God would transform us by applying that which Christ enlivened even to the death of the cross. But it is the power of God unto salvation for the faither.


3,532 posted on 08/21/2007 2:14:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for those in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3531 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Your Posts are Always Excellent, Dr. Eckleburg!


3,533 posted on 08/21/2007 2:29:49 PM PDT by Kitty Mittens (To God Be All Excellent Praise!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3531 | View Replies]

To: Kitty Mittens; Dr. Eckleburg
Your Posts are Always Excellent, Dr. Eckleburg!

Put the crackpipe down. :-)

3,534 posted on 08/21/2007 2:32:26 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3533 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Why is that worse?

Because God causing the Holocaust is worse than God creating man with free will.

3,535 posted on 08/21/2007 2:33:56 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3531 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

I am FULLY aware of my sins.


3,536 posted on 08/21/2007 2:53:27 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3509 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; xzins
God does not "cause" evil, and free will as most men define it is an illusion. God created Satan and nothing Satan does is outside God's control. Nothing anyone nor anything does is outside God's control. If that were not true, God would not be who He says He is and the Bible would be a lie.

Those statements are Biblical truths. The fact that we don't understand them fully does not negate them. One day we will understand more fully. Until then, God is still in control. Period.

To presume that God does not "interfere" with some kind of sacrosanct free will of men is utterly without evidence in Scripture and goes to the heart of a complete misunderstanding of who is the Creator and who is the creation.

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 45:5-13


3,537 posted on 08/21/2007 3:12:19 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3535 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; hosepipe; Alamo-Girl
Jeepers kosta, why does this have to be an "either/or situation?" It seems to me one needs the Bible; otherwise one's "inner knowledge" might tend to the Gnostic....

Just as I wrote to A-G, you need to take that up with hosepipe who wrote re my comment that for 2,000 years most people could not read or afford the Bible but could hear it only in the Church: "Lucky for them that Jesus left the Holy Spirit to handle all that(literacy stuff).."

It seems to me he doesn't think e need the Bible...take it up with him.

3,538 posted on 08/21/2007 3:24:26 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3527 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
SHuuuush...

You're right again, hosepipe: it sounds even better whispered...

(;

3,539 posted on 08/21/2007 3:26:13 PM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3504 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant; Kitty Mittens
Oh, you know we'd probably like each other in real life, II. I bet you're a very nice young man who would give his seat to an old lady on a bus or pick up a paper cup littering the sidewalk.

(No cracks about which old lady; I'm very young at heart and I don't even know where the bus stop is.)

Hi, Kitty Mittens. I enjoy your posts thoroughly. Hope you're well. 8~)

3,540 posted on 08/21/2007 3:28:06 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3534 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,501-3,5203,521-3,5403,541-3,560 ... 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