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.

[Cronos]

The Masonic Order traces it foundation back even farther than that and in spite of all the occult influences it still survived with its liturgy.

The "Masonic Order" dates from the 15th century merchant guilds and all of their "rites" and "beliefs" are essentially from the 18th and 19th centuries...

[Forest Keeper]

"Dunking" and HS are two events that take place at the same time. We Orthodox apply the seal (chrism) immediately; the Catholics at the "age of reason."

YOUR PRIESTS APPLY THE SEAL??? I knew there was a ceremony, but I didn't know that for salvation (or its beginning, if you like) it was under the authority of men, since only one with true authority can apply a seal. That is yet another example of God following man's instructions under Apostolic doctrine. Sometimes I truly wonder if Apostolics will allow God to do anything without the help and authority of the Magisterium. :) Contrary verses include:

2 Cor 1:21-22 : 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.

The first example is self explanatory, and in the second, for your interpretation to be right, God does everything EXCEPT for one clause in verse 13. We are given no indication of such a shift. The context is absolutely clear that the placing of the mark of the seal was done by God alone. Jesus did not say that He would send the Spirit to the Magisterium to dispense with as it saw fit, He said He would send the Spirit to believers. But apparently, the Magisterium also claims the power to send the Spirit whither the Magisterium wills. Jesus said:

John 3:8 : The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

That is, EXCEPT for the Magisterium. Somehow, the Magisterium is able to capture the wind and command where it goes. Is there ANY level of supernatural power that your leaders claim that ever makes you feel uncomfortable? :)

[hosepipe]

[.. The Church always had a person given "more respect" -- Peter was the head of the apostles, not in the sense of a drill sergeant and his troop, but more the term of first among equals. The Roman Bishop was given that honor -- right from the start, there was never any doubt of the Roman bishop having that "honor" ..]

Not so.. Absolutely not so.. The churchs for the almost 300 years were local area controlled.. They fellowshipped somewhat accross areas but the control was local.. even if they agreed on "things"..

[hosepipe]

[.. You consider the idea of having priests as a "strange rite"? ..]

YES.. only one of many many strange cultic rites..
I do understand it of course.. After Constantine forced all Roman pagans to become christians, then priests were needed to comtrol the pagans.. The pagans always had priests..

[hosepipe]

[.. ALL Christians until the 16th century were Apostolic, i.e. either catholic (and that would include the current day Orthodox and Catholic Churchs) or Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian etc.) or Assyrian.. ..]

There has ALWAYS been christians loyal to the Holy Spirit FIRST, but not to any other authority.. even IF they met with those you say above.. As there are NOW..

[D-fendr]

Is this a “Trail of Blood” theory you’re referrring to?

[.30Carbine]

k50 - So, what's the point? You have already stated that you have known Christ for the last five decades. Fine. But why are you repeating it? This is like saying "My screen name is Alamo-Girl." is endless repetition going to prove it's true?

A-G - Jeepers, kosta50, Christ made the blind to see and they couldn’t stop talking about what a miracle He did for them.

Even more so I cannot be silent when Christ has worked a far greater miracle in me.

Amen. Psalm 145:4-7, 10-12

One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.

I will speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works.

And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible acts: and I will declare thy greatness.

They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness.

All thy works shall praise thee, O LORD; and thy saints shall bless thee.

They shall speak of the glory of thy kingdom, and talk of thy power;

To make known to the sons of men his mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of his kingdom!

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I had never considered stretching the parable as far - it is enough for me that Christ is the Treasure and the Pearl of Great Price. FReegards, 7_0, from .30 (;

[hosepipe]

[.. Oh, you mean the heresies like the Arian (who said that Christ was a creature, created by God) or the Gnostics or Islam? You think Islam, a heresy, was a good thing? ..]

YES.. all religion is heresy..
Christ came to make ALL religion on this planet obsolete, AND DID..
And he left the Holy Spirit in charge as the ultimate authority..
Christianity is not a religion its a family..

There are many cultic practices including christian ones..
But they are all the same ... the flesh searching for God..
Searching for God on their/its own terms..

ONLY the Holy Spirit can create the new birth(regeneration)..
New birth into a family..

[hosepipe]

Furthermore, the term “Protestant”, now includes thousands of splinter groups like the Western Branch of American Reform Prebylutheranism, which is hubris. ..]

Roman catholic, EO, and protestant hubris is possible..
But within all those groups are "overcomers"..
Overcomeing denomination.. has always been so..

[hosepipe]

[.. Latin, the common language for all of Western Europe until well into the second millenium. ..]

Not true.. for many hundreds of years ONLY RC priests knew Latin.. even in Italy..

[hosepipe]

{.. Ha Ha! You mean to say that an ordinary person in the 6th century in Londinium or Paris or Nice or Hispania would know Koine GREEK rather than Latin?? ..]

No in the middle east.. Because of Alexander the great and those that followed his rule after he died.. latin was used on;lt by RC priests.. and some orthodox clergy.. as a second laguage.. But the PEOPLE... NO..

[.30Carbine]

Re: "working to maintain what we already have"

If you are married, you have the love of your spouse: do you not cultivate that? In order to get married, does one not need to forsake all other loves?

I see the "treasure" and the "pearl" 'I found' being 'purchased' in this way.

It is because Christ is already mine that daily I seek more of Him and less of what I formerly held to - even as a spouse "forsakes all others, keeping only unto" this one new, consecrated partner. We cannot serve both God and Gain. I count all the former "treasure of this world" less than garbage and press on to take hold of Him Who took hold of me!

He said, "If you are a friend of the world you cannot be a friend of God." It's an either/or sorta thing, as it is with marriage: Either you are married or you are 'playing the field' - can't have it both ways in a rational universe. Try living like you're single when you are married and see how long that marriage will last, or how good that relationship will be. I 'sell' all those former 'relationships' (to people or things of "mammon" or "of the world") and in the place of them I hold Christ. Amen. "He must increase!" I repeat, as John the Baptizer proclaimed, and this happens only as all other things, self included, decrease.

If I have my hands full with other things, how can I pick up a diamond? Seeing the diamond free and available, I will drop whatever worthless thing I formerly clung to and grasp the gem...if, that is, I am in my right mind (; The 'purchase price' consists only in letting go of, or "selling," what I already have.

[hosepipe]

[.. And everything of this earth, according to you, is evil. ..]

Not evil but fleshly.. idolotrous, sensual.. as of a Cargo Cult.. with an Idol(s) and a cargo..

[hosepipe]

[.. Is this a “Trail of Blood” theory you’re referring to? ..]

I may not be following you.. sorry..

[xzins]

Jesus predicted Judas' demise from the earliest part of Judas' selection as an apostle.

Jn 6: 70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

This destiny was far older than Judas' few years on the earth up to that point. It had been predicted for hundreds of years:

• Mt 27:3 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders.
• Zec 11:13 - And the Lord said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord to the potter.

[fortheDeclaration]

And these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life....(1Jn.5:13)

[kosta50]

But, according to some "biblical scholars", we're wrong.

More like 'bible-beliving' Protestants. They start with a cnclusion and then go backwards seeking verses to prove that they are correct. That's not scholarship.

[kosta50]

Mark: So Satan serves God in Hell, is that right? God preordains billions of humans to Hell. Satan tortures them beyond the constraints of their human bodies because they are now immortal.

Cronos: abominable, isn't it? Some god they believe in

Closer to allah then Christ. Fundamentalism is all the same; only the names have been changed to protect the "select."

[kosta50]

The egotism of Calvin can be astounding, saying that there is a cruel god who condemns people to eternal damnation, BEFORE they were born, a god who also choose some lucky few and among those lucky few is Mr. Calvin

I think there might be a personality disorder (of varying degrees) in some denominations.