Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

The Apostles dind't walk around with the Christian bible in their hands. They wrote the New Testament later on. So, what keys were they using then?

You're right --- but they had been taught directly from the mouth of Word of God Himself --- and what they learned was passed down though those parchments that they subsequently laid their hands upons. And we have those keys of authority today passed down by the laying on of hands by faithful men throughout the generations.

The NT says nothing of using the Scriptures as the key to heaven, but it says "whatever you bind shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosen shall be loosened in heaven..."

Oh really??? And just how do you know that Jesus actually said this if you don't have the Scriptures to tell you so. Show me evidence of those keys without the Scriptures ----

I am not wanting you to judge [i.e. condemn] anyone. I was asking if you knew something. It appears to me that you do not know which humans and which denomination most accurately teaches Apostolic doctrine.

If you do not know which humans and/or which denomination most accurately teaches Apostolic doctrine, then you must not know what is the Apostolic doctrine, because if you truly knew the Apostolic doctrine, you would be able to say which humans/denomination comes closest to "getting it right", as Dr. E. says. But it appears that you don't know if the Pentecostals are closer than the Baptists, or the Presbyterians are closer than the Lutherans, or the Anglicans are closer than the Methodists, or the Mennonites are closer than the Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. Regarding such questions, you seem not to know the answer.

So for all you know, (so far as I can tell from your answers) the Catholic Church might be the one most accurately teaching the whole of the Apostles' doctrine.

-A8

which begs the question of how exacly humans are supposed to be able to baptise with the Holy Spirit since they are not mightier than John the Baptist and are no more fit to touch Christ shoes...

John said that, not Jesus...John said he was not worthy...Are you worthy??? Am I worthy???

Jesus said, Come boldy before the throne of grace, to get mercy in time of need...

Jesus said, Come unto Me, and I'll give you rest...

Jesus said we are a Holy Priesthood...

Paul says we are seated with Jesus in Heavenly places...

As a Christian, God is my Father...I am his son...

The third part of the Trinity occupies my body...

When John spoke that verse, he was not occupied by the Holy Spirit...

To the contrary, dear adiaireton8, I do know who is most accurately teaching the whole of the Apostles' doctrine and have repeatedly testified that the "who" is none other than the Holy Spirit Himself.

Don't look at the pen, look at the Shepherd. What He tells you to do, do it.

As P-Marlowe has explained, He has sheep in most every pen who hear Him and follow Him.

It is not "about" the pen.

I will say however that those sheep and their pens which have obstructed the Shepherd are in deep Spiritual peril.

Hyper-denominationalism as xzins calls it leads to spiritual darkness. So does idol worshiping which includes lifting up ones self or another sheep or a fabrication of any kind equal to or above God.

But if the sheep hears and obeys the Shepherd's call - no matter how badly the pen might be built - he will be ok.

The error, imo, of the Protestant/Baptist world is that the focus is on the individual believer, who claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit but in truth relies entirely on his or her personal interpretation of the Bible and creates an entirely private theology and calls it "true."

Exactly as the leaders of your church do...

People in your church have no more authority to interpret God's word than a Pentacostal, IMO...

God says no scripture is of ANY private interpretation...God says all interpretations belong to Him...

But that doesn't deter most folks...

As I see it, God gives us the basics in his written word...Like Kindergarten class...If we learn from the basics, we move on to the next grade...If we don't learn, or don't believe what He said, we're stuck in Kindergarten...

I don't believe we have to interpret anything in the Bible...All we have to do is believe...God will provide the understanding...

When folks don't understand something, instead of waiting on God, they will apply their own interpretation...If they don't like what they read, or don't believe what they read, they change the words to mean something else...

I believe everything I read in the Bible...If I don't understand it, that's fine...I'll go on to something else til it's revealed to me...But I'll still believe it...

If scripture appears to contradict itself, and it does, I accept that the problem is mine, not the scripture's...

Seems that rather than focusing on Protestants who disagree with their interpretation of the scripture, it would interest you knowing that there are millions of Protestants who agree as much as they do on the scripture while belonging to different churches...

The Spirit leads each of us into Truth, individually, according to what we can bear and more importantly, God's will for each of us.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. - John 16:13

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able. - I Cor 3:2

If He leads you to be Catholic, that is what you must do. If He leads another to be Baptist, that is what he must do.

Beware the concept of "contradiction" - Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle (either/or) - with reference to the Word of God. God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts.

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. - Isaiah 55:8

If we apply man's ways and man's thoughts to God we will either anthropomorphize Him into an imagining of a small "god" our minds can comprehend - or else we will proliferate doctrines and traditions of men:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. - Deuteronomy 4:2

Just believe. It truly is that simple.

When we love Him and trust Him - we don't sweat the details.

Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. - Phl 4:6-7

God is Love and God is Light.

Visualize a seven faceted diamond. A person facing one facet of the diamond may see something that looks quite different compared to what another person sees facing a different facet of the diamond. But it is the same diamond, and the same Light.

And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. - Rev 4:5

The word in Titus 1:5 which is translated as "priest" (or as you would have it, as "elder") is in the Greek presbuteros. While it does mean "elder" in Greek, it was rendered as presbyter in Latin, which became priester in German and finally priest in English.

Thus priest is just the English rendering of the Greek presbuteros and is a proper translation.

Nope...Can't buy that...

ἱερεύς

hiereus

hee-er-yooce'

From G2413; a priest (literally or figuratively): - (high) priest.

גּדל גּדול

gâdôl gâdôl

gaw-dole', gaw-dole'

From H1431; great (in any sense); hence older; also insolent: - + aloud, elder (-est), + exceeding (-ly), + far, (man of) great (man, matter, thing, -er, -ness), high, long, loud, mighty, more, much, noble, proud thing, X sore, (Â´) very.

Priest and elder are two different words in Greek...They are two different words in English...And I'm not really interested in what some Latin translations are...

I wrote: "It appears to me that you do not know which humans and which denomination most accurately teaches Apostolic doctrine."

You replied: "To the contrary, dear adiaireton8, I do know who is most accurately teaching the whole of the Apostles' doctrine and have repeatedly testified that the "who" is none other than the Holy Spirit Himself."

Notice how your "To the contrary" does not address my statement. My statement is about which humans are most accurately teaching Apostolic doctrine. Your response is about the the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a human being. Therefore, your "To the contrary" is a red herring, i.e. it is not a refutation of my statement, because it changes the subject.

If you don't know which humans/denomination most accurately teaches the Apostolic doctrine, then why not just say so, instead of playing games by changing the subject and acting as though it refutes my statement?

-A8

Beware the concept of "contradiction" - Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle (either/or) - with reference to the Word of God. God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts.

So beware of it and don't beware of it, at the same time and in the same sense. God ways are not our ways, and they are our ways, at the same time and in the same sense. God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and they are our thoughts, at the same time and in the same sense.

Good luck!

-A8

Notice how your "To the contrary" does not address my statement. My statement is about which humans are most accurately teaching Apostolic doctrine. Your response is about the the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not a human being. Therefore, your "To the contrary" is a red herring, i.e. it is not a refutation of my statement, because it changes the subject.

Sigh...

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. - Galatians 2:20-21

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:3

Thanks, but that does not tell me which humans/denomination most accurately teaches the Apostles' doctrine.

-A8

I think you meant to say "Person"; the Trinity does not have parts.

No, really I didn't...Humans are persons...Sinners are persons...

Bible says God is Spirit...The Holy Spirit I would think is not a person in the human sense of the word...

All I know is that there are three of 'em...

A human has a body, a soul and a spirit...Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

We don't even know if we will appear as humans in heaven...

But I don't dwell on it...When we meet Jesus, we will appear as He is...

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.