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.

You guys condemn egalitarianism as if, in the context of our relationship to God, it is a bad thing. No, the Catholic priesthood is all about power over the laity.

This kind of thinking, if you take it to its logical end, will lead to egalitarian thinking in class and politics, which is the central organizing principle of left-wing ideology. It's one continuum.

“No, but the offices of episkopos and presbuteros are mentioned in Acts, 1 Timothy and Titus.”

Maybe Corinth had a “no priest” zone since Apollos, Peter and Paul all seemed to like to visit there so they were able to do for themselves like the early church did going from house to house.

By the way, as has been pointed out many times on this thread, episkopos and presbuteros are interchangeable with pastors and elders. There really is no difference, but they are not mentioned in Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Galations, Philippi, Colossae.

By definition the office of Apostle ended with the last to have been an eye witness to the resurrection. It could not have been passed on.

"Apostle" does not mean by definition a "witness" but rather an "envoy". It would be quite natural that when selecting a replacement for Judas that a witness to the Resurrection would be preferred since his testimony would carry greater weight. But there is nothing in the Bible to say that they authority of the Apostles would cease after that first generation. On the contrary, "apostleship" that is conferred upon Matthias is identified as an "episcopacy" in v. 20, the same episcopacy that is identified by Paul in 1 Timothy.

***On the contrary, “apostleship” that is conferred upon Matthias is identified as an “episcopacy” in v. 20, the same episcopacy that is identified by Paul in 1 Timothy.***

But it was done BEFORE Peter had power from the Holy Spirit. He acted, in my opinion, in error and in haste. God had a man picked to be the 12th apostle, Paul.

“That is an argument from silence. More than likely there were multiple presbyters there, not just one. The letter was probably addressed primarily to them, and secondarily to the congregation.”

No actually it is an argument from Paul’s method of doing business. If you read the opening of the letter it is to the church. If you read the closing he greets many people; noticeably missing is any mention of “priests” and after all, they would have been responsible for the schisms mentioned in chapter 1, the raucus meetings of chapter 14, the petty jealousies of chapter 12 and finally the eating orgies of chapter 11. He had no reluctance in embarrassing Peter in front of the Galation church.

But it was done BEFORE Peter had power from the Holy Spirit. He acted, in my opinion, in error and in haste. God had a man picked to be the 12th apostle, Paul.

Excellent point. There were only 12 apostles. Judas was never one. The apostles attempted to pick their own apostle and they couldn't. The 12th apostle was chosen by the same guy who chose the other 11. Jesus. In order to qualify as an apostle you had to be personally chosen by Christ and not by some committee, not even a committee of Apostles.

“On the contrary, “apostleship” that is conferred upon Matthias is identified as an “episcopacy” in v. 20,”

That’s just plain nonsense. They are quoting Psalm 109:8, “ Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office.” He was to be numbered among the twelve in Judas’ place; an apostle, an eye witness to the resurrection.

Maybe Corinth had a “no priest” zone since Apollos, Peter and Paul all seemed to like to visit there so they were able to do for themselves like the early church did going from house to house.

Pure speculation with nothing Biblical to support it. Paul indicated to Timothy and Titus his plan for the churches and this included the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros and diakonos.

By the way, as has been pointed out many times on this thread, episkopos and presbuteros are interchangeable with pastors and elders.

If you wish, but these offices of episkopos and presbuteros were only conferred by the laying on of hands by those who already possessed these offices. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that a local church group could institute them of their own accord. It is these offices of episkopos and presbuteros that you find preserved among the Catholics and Orthodox today.

But it was done BEFORE Peter had power from the Holy Spirit. He acted, in my opinion, in error and in haste.

Now we are to put your opinion above that of Peter? Nowhere in the Bible is Peter condemned for this nor is the apostleship of Matthias ever denied. What ever happened to sola scriptura?

God had a man picked to be the 12th apostle, Paul.

But I thought that blue-duncan said that an apostle had to be an eye-witness to the Resurrection and that this was why of office died with them.

***But I thought that blue-duncan said that an apostle had to be an eye-witness to the Resurrection and that this was why of office died with them.***

If I remember right, and I usually do, here were NO witnesses to the Resurrection, but there were many witnesses to the crucifiction. The 12 apostles were named before the Crucifiction, before the Resurrection. They were chosen by Jesus personally, just as Paul was. Matthias was chosen by lot, by men.

By Resurrection I include the post-Resurrection appearances. In either case, Paul was not a witness.

They were chosen by Jesus personally, just as Paul was. Matthias was chosen by lot, by men.

I do not deny Paul's apostleship but nowhere is that of Mattias ever denied. I am afraid that you are attempting to read back into Scripture to fit your man-made ecclesiology. This is the complete opposite of your claimed sola scriptura.

I will not play that game - I am following the Shepherd. Period.

I must say, I commend you for both your patience and your unwavering, committed focus on Jesus and his gospel.

I am enjoying the clarity, as well as the depth and scope, of your testimony.

I look forward to finding your posts in the future, they are truly like sailing into a calm port for respite, to escape from the storms at sea. (pardon my poorly worded analogies, but hopefully you understand their intent.)

Is God somehow prohibited from consecrating bread and wine because the person asking for it does not have the requisite apostolic authority or is not wearing the appropriate costume?

In what is fast becoming one of my very favorite links, we learn from Father Baker that the offering of the bread and wine during mass can be "invalid" for several reasons...

THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD

"...A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words "This is my body" or "This is the cup of my blood" into something else...
they must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes, and have the intention of doing what the Church does in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass..."

A "defect in the matter?" A "defect in the form?"

How can they say with a straight face that "the correct words must be used" in order for the alchemy of transubstantiation to transpire?

Do they truly not see how this mumbo-jumbo is the antithesis of the Gospel? It's wizardry; not Christ risen.

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.