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.

[Pyro7480]

You think Judas was a literal devil?

[redgolum]

The question of Judas, and of Pharaoh in Exodus, is a tricky one, for it calls in to question predestination, how can God make reliable prophecy, etc.

Jesus knew that Judas would betray him, that much is obvious. But the real question is did God force him to, or let him. The traditional answer is He let Judas follow the path that he was already on.

[P-Marlowe]

You think Judas was a literal devil?

Yep.

dev·il(dvl)

n.

1. often Devil In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of God. Used with the.

2. A subordinate evil spirit; a demon.

3. A wicked or malevolent person.

4. A person: a handsome devil; the poor devil.

5. An energetic, mischievous, daring, or clever person.

6. Printing A printer's devil.

7. A device or machine, especially one having teeth or spikes and used for tearing.

8. An outstanding example, especially of something difficult or bad: has a devil of a temper.

9. A severe reprimand or expression of anger: gave me the devil for cutting class.

10. Informal Used as an intensive: Who the devil do you think you are?

.

G1228
διάβολος
diabolos
dee-ab'-ol-os
From G1225; a traducer; specifically Satan (compare [H7854]): - false accuser, devil, slanderer.

[Pyro7480]

The traditional answer is He let Judas follow the path that he was already on.

Credo.

[adiaireton8]

but at the heart of every one of your posts is the denial of the Holy Spirit.

Condemning Montanistic gnosticism is not denying the Holy Spirit.

Somehow you feel more comfortable tying yourself to an archaic ...

Notice that your statement is an ad hominem. You are criticizing *me*. The reason I am a Catholic has nothing to do with the degree of comfort the Church gives me. The reason I am a Catholic is because the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ founded. As for "archaic", I say AMEN. Your denomination was founded 71 years ago by a man named Machen. You are part of a man-made institution. The Catholic Church, by contrast, was founded in 33 AD by Jesus Christ, on Peter the Rock (Christ being the Cornerstone).

magisterium which has shown itself to be misguided and riddled with error.

Prove the falsehood of one Catholic dogma, without begging the question.

Two billion dollars in payouts to redress the sexual deviance of the RCC priesthood should tell anyone with eyes to see that the tree of Rome is corrupt.

That is a non-sequitur. If the gates of hell cannot overcome the Church Christ founded, then neither can a bad group of priests. The Church has gone through worse periods in the past. Schism is never justified, even in situations like this. There is only one Church, because Christ has only one Bride.

The fact that some heretics site Scripture in defense of their heresies does not in any way negate the truth of Scripture and its correct understanding via the Holy Spirit.

Agreed. But it shows that appealing to Scripture and the Holy Spirit is not enough to guarantee that you have the correct understanding of Scripture.

The RCC (and thus you as we've seen here) can't argue from the Scriptures because your beliefs are so contrary to the Scriptures.

Catholic doctrines are in perfect agreement with the Scriptures. They are, however, contrary to your heretical interpretations of Scripture. (You keep leaving out that word 'interpretation', because you still don't realize that you are interpreting Scripture.)

-A8

[redgolum]

So the EOC (and non-Cahlcedonian and Assyrian) position is quite different than that of Christians who reject the Catholic faith and heirarchical and sacramental systems.

Which brings up the Incarnation. Which is more important, the theology of Apostolic Succession or the theology of the Incarnation? The non Chalcedonian churches do not have the theology of the Incarnation the same as the Chalacedonian churches do (which includes many Protestants).

Also, the Malabar Christians didn't have the best of luck with the Portuguese Jesuits at times. They were accused of being Nestorians, and many of their books were burned. Some have not united with the Roman Catholics to this day as a result.

[humblegunner]

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.

Pope drunk again ping.

[P-Marlowe]

The traditional answer is He let Judas follow the path that he was already on.

He was not on a path to betray Jesus until Jesus chose him as a disciple. He was just minding his own business, (probably working as a pickpocket at the flea market) when Jesus picked him to be one of the twelve.

[pax_et_bonum]

humble!

(arms crossed, toe tapping, and frowning in your general direction)

[Pyro7480]

Ad hominem ping :-P

[pax_et_bonum]

humble!

(arms crossed, toe tapping, and frowning in your general direction)

[Gumdrop]

“There seems to be a tradition expressed by some of our Catholic posters that suggests that the Holy Spirit does not work independent of man or independent of the Catholic Priesthood.”

Which posters might that be? It certainly is not part of the Catholic church’s teachings!

[kosta50]

For they wished those men to be perfect and unblamable whom they left and their successors and to whom they handed over their office of authority [+Irenaeus, c. 202 A.D.]

Doesn't get much clearer than that...

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. [+Ignatius, c. 105 A.D.]

Not only has the Church remaind true to the Apostolic faith handed to them by our Lord, but the heretics keep regenerating as well, like weed.

[adiaireton8]

There seems to be a tradition expressed by some of our Catholic posters that suggests that the Holy Spirit does not work independent of man or independent of the Catholic Priesthood. The tradition seems to be that unless a priest conjures up the Holy Spirit through some fancy elaborate ritual, the Holy Spirit is essentially powerless to do anything.

That's not the Catholic position. Christ has promised to work through the Church. So, for example, when Christ says to His Apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (John 20:23), that tells us that when the bishop or priest absolve the penitent, then the Holy Spirit does as well. And when the bishop or priest retains a person's sins, then the Holy Spirit does as well. Similarly, in Matt 16:19, and 18:18, we see that what the Apostles bind, will be bound in heaven, and what the Apostles loose, will be loosed in heaven. That does not mean that the Holy Spirit is powerless or cannot work apart from the Church. It means that the ordinary means through which Christ and the Holy Spirit work upon the earth are through the Church.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

If the Apostles messed up there, then how can you trust anything they wrote, or any decisions they made?

-A8

[adiaireton8]

My last post was addressed to those who think that the Apostles made a mistake in choosing Matthias.

-A8

[adiaireton8]

Are you ready to call the books of I and II Peter into question? If you can't trust the Apostle Peter, then why do you trust his writings?

-A8

[blue-duncan]

“I would also state that the efficacy of the sacrament is not dependent upon some kind of apostolic succession or official priestly ordination.”

Hey, how’s this for “apostolic succession” Romans 16:7, “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” Junia was a woman, probably Andronicus’ wife and they were “apostles” of note even before Paul. They were probably “of note” because they were Gentiles (Romans) and she was a she. Wow, that’s even more mind boggling than Phebe being a Deacon from the Cenchrea. I bet this is how the way was paved for the female pope, who bore the name of Johanna (Joan) in the thirteenth century.

By my count I think we are up to at least 14 apostles and maybe more. I’ll keep reading and let you know.

[irishtenor]

If I were to go to Safeco Field while a Mariners game was being played and walk onto the field I would be among the Mariners, but that wouldn’t make me one :>)

[adiaireton8]

The priesthood was abolished on the cross with Christ. Christ is our high priest. We need acknowledge no other.

How can you consecrate the bread and wine without a priest?

-A8