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.

“However, since this is the second (or third, depending on Kolo’s answer to my response to him) recent post challenging that supposition, I am happy to recalibrate my understanding. :)”

FK, I think I’ll stick with my reply at 7126. That really is what we are talking about as Harley will concur, I am sure. Monergism and Synergism are quite different theological systems. A monergist would necessarily view Orthodox synergism as you do.

Now here’s the interesting thing. HD has maintained that the West was essentially monergist at least since Blessed Augustine but has generally fallen away from that position and has either adopted, or moved towards adopting, the Orthodox position since the Reformation. I find that fascinating. What do you think, Jo?

Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins. Yes.

Many of you have written on this, and so I will accept that this is your view. One of my responses was in 7,158.

That payment is held in reserve until and unless we repent. [---] But the payment is not made for us specifically for specific sins until we repent of that sin. We get no free pass. Otherwise repentance has no meaning.

Well, then the payment was not a payment in full. Rather, it was more of a deposit with the balance being due from the individual in order to secure salvation. Or, it could be characterized as a conditional payment, dependent upon specific performance. IOW, what Jesus did definitely had strings attached, it was not a free gift, as you say above. Of course we would disagree and say that Jesus did it all, and that salvation is indeed a free gift.

I have seen Apostolics say before that salvation is a free gift, but that it must be accepted. But here, in more detail, more is required than simply saying "yes". Here, specific action is required in the form of repentance. It sounds like much more of a bargain situation than a gift situation. I mean, in free will I would imagine that repentance is no snap of the fingers.

But, according to the Reformed, nothing that we do has any meaning. So therefore what significance has repentance in the overall scheme of things except as a meaningless gesture.

Meaning is in the eye of the beholder here. If true meaning comes from the glorification of man, his free will, and power, then you are right. We don't focus on that so much. :)

‘ALL have sin and come short of the glory of God’ seems impartial to me. ‘Would that none be lost’ seems impartial to me...

God's impartiality is established in the Bible. A perfect Judge must be impartial in order to render impartial justice to all. He cannot be swayed by your faith, your looks, your influence, your wealth, etc.

God judges everyone justly and appropriately. If you are judged righteous in His eyes then you are truly righteous, even if others don't see it that way. Your righteousness is not His opinion, or taste, or just "favor." It's a fact.

Likewise, if you are judged evil you are truly evil and not just labeled as evil because God is offended by your sin. It's not His opinion; it's the truth.

So, in His judgment He is just in either case. You are not judged either way because He "likes" you or "hates" you, but accoridng to what you really are. You can't fool God. You can't buy His favor. You can tithe your way into heaven, but you can bribe your way into hell.

God is no respector of persons. Each of us will get what we rightfully deserve, even if we think otherwise.

Yes, if I found out that the judge was partial to running a tight ship in his courtroom, unlike a Judge Ito

You are playing with words. This whole discussion over partiality started over God being an impartial judge, as all judges should be in their judgment. That God is impartial is established in the Bible. It says on more than one occasion that He is impartial, or words to that effect (synonyms). End of discussion.

Yes, as long as I understood what it was. Every witness is going to be partial to something

So if you have witnesses protecting a murder, with false alibis—that's good?

Imagine you got busted on a bum rap and at trial your lawyer called your priest as a character witness

If I were innocent I would want nothing but the truth. If I wanted to get out of a crime I committed by pretending that I am innocent, I would want someone to "fabricate" my innocence because "they're my buddies" and they won't say bad things about me.

If I were accused improperly I would want the truth to come out. I would want my priests to say only the truth about me. If you did nothing, then truth will set you free (in an unbiased system). If you are convicted before you even had a chance to defend yourself, then the judge and the whole legal process is a charade.

Part of the main difference in views is between whether God foreknows the elect or whether he picks some and predetermines they are elect.

It comes down to what the word "foreknows" actually means. Is it merely an awareness of future events, or it is an ordination of future events?

Let's see what Scripture says...

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" -- Acts 2:23

Did God merely know ahead of time that Christ would be crucified, or did God ordain the cross according to His plan of salvation?

According to Scripture, God does not elect based on His foreknowledge of the future actions of men. What could be clearer than Romans 9:11?

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth"

Some excellent articles on the subject are...

FOREKNOWLEDGE

And...

DOES GOD ELECT PERSONS BASED ON THEIR FORESEEN FAITH? And...

AN EXEGETICAL STUDY OF GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE

And finally...

Calvin's Commentary on Malachi
"...As we have said, there is no real difference among men, except in their hidden election. Some theologians would make foreknowledge the mother of election, and that very foolishly and childishly. They say that some men are chosen and others rejected by God, because God, from whom nothing is hidden, foresees of what sort each man will be. But I ask, Whence comes virtue to one and vice to the other? If they say, "From free will," surely creation was before free will. This is one point. Besides, we know that all men were created alike in the person of Adam. . . . And what does this mean except that the condition of all who come from the one root is the same?
I am not discussing "special gifts." I admit that if our nature had not been corrupted and we all had the same assurance of blessedness, we would be endowed with a variety of gifts. . . . But since in Adam all are sinners, deserving of eternal death, it is obvious that nothing but sin will be found in men. Therefore, God's foreknowledge cannot be the reason of our election, because when God [looks into the future and] surveys all mankind, he will find them all, from the first to the last, under the same curse. So we see how foolishly triflers prattle when they ascribe to mere naked foreknowledge what must be founded on God's good pleasure. . . .
When Moses prays to God not to break his covenant with Abraham, God answers, "I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." What does he mean? He means that the reason for God's keeping some for himself and rejecting 295 others is to be sought nowhere but in God himself. When he says, "I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion," the repetition may seem empty and dull; but it is in reality emphatic. . . . The reason for compassion is compassion itself..."

It follows that everything foreknown of God was ordained of God.

Children don't get to pick their parents and no one is born accidentally.

2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

The new creation, of which Christ is the exemplar and the firstborn, is God's plan for mankind. Christian believers are made in that image, just as all creatures are made for God's purposes. All flesh is grass.

Isaiah 40:6

The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry ? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

40:7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass.

Genesis 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

I could give you a theological answer, or a verse answer, but I'm guessing you've heard them all before?

Actually, no, I have not heard them all before. In fact, I haven't heard anything. Every time I ask the question people normally give me vague or wishy-washy answers but never give me a straight forward answer. My guess is they refuse to want to give God the glory for their faith because they have to give up on believing in their free will.

Not trying to be facetious, but if you could give some direction or elaborate a little more

Where does faith in God come from? This isn't rocket science. I'm not sure what type of direction you're looking for in such short question.

Yes, I still believe that.

What I posted by St. Worm earlier was rather intriguing about the Orthodox never getting involved in the Pelagius/Augustine controversy, especially since the Orthodox would favor a synergistic view. I would concur with St. Worm that the Orthodox has a completely different way of looking at things like the atonement, judgment, etc that the Pelagius/Augustine debate never bothered them.

Of course, the east and west did not have email accounts so communications was a bit more difficult to discuss some of these theological points. You send a monk off to ask what synergism was and three years later you would hear back. By then you would have forgotten the question.

Then what happens when an infant is baptized

Baptism is a sacrament of adption into the Body of Christ. That means those who are baptized are His. Baptized babies are saved in that they are assured to enjoy the full bliss in the presence of God. Unbaptized babies may too, but we don't know.

I remember there being some kind of a proxy thing, but am not sure if you are talking about that above

Godparents accept the faith on account of the infant, by commititng themselves for life to raise that child in faith.

OK, so it looks like you are saying that Christ's "effect" on sin is the same throughout. It allows us to ask for forgiveness for sins, and as infants this happens by proxy?

Infants have not committed any sins. There is nothing to repent of.

You say it is ridiculous to be able to repent of future sins and we say it is ridiculous to repent and believe by proxy

No one repents by proxy. Children do not sin. A baptized child is raised in faith. No on believes by proxy.

The Spirit moves all believers to want to come back to Him, and giving a guilty conscience is one motivational tool.

Why feel guilty if your sins are forgiven? There is no motivation whatsoever. If you feel guilty and wish to repent means you feel that you have unforgiven sins. To a Protestant that is an oxymoron.

We consider that we are justified because of CHRIST'S righteousness, not our own.

You can't claim righteousness through someone else. Either His righteousness is given or, as some would say, imputed the end result is the same. It makes no difference whence came the bragging right, whether you paid for it, or whether it was a gift. It's still given to you. And those who feel righteous have no reaosn to feel the need to repent.

Certainly. It is Scripture and I believe it. I simply believe that you are misinterpreting it.

Mark 3:

28
Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them.
29
But whoever blasphemes against the holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.”

Matt 12:

31
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
32
And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

There is the Word of Jesus. It is directly said by Him; we are to take those Words as Gospel. As a matter of fact, with it being repeated in two of the Gospels, it is indicated that we had really better pay attention to it.

He says that it is possible for all men to condemn themselves by their actions; namely blasphemy against the Spirit. That is man being the final arbiter of his own destiny. Notice that it says that all sins other than that WILL be forgiven them. How does your theology deal with these verses?

Will you say that these are only of the elect? Will you say that these don’t apply to all men? Your list of proofs grows thin.

I give you Gospels and now in desperation you depart from out of context Paul and give me out of context Psalms.

Certainly salvation is conditional. We cannot be saved against our wills. The verses from Mark and Matthew (several posts ago) have Jesus saying directly that man can lose his own salvation - by blaspheming the Spirit. Therefore salvation is conditional and no amount of twisting Pauline or OT verses can possibly gainsay it.

Repentence is a life-long thing, and not just a one-off event for past and future sins. Repentence is taken very seriously by Catholics - the Sacrament of Reconciliation is considered just about as important as the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

We understand that man by himself cannot possibly attain salvation. That was lost in the original sin of Adam. Only through Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross can that way be opened again. But it is a way - Via, the early Christians called it - Jesus called Himself the Way, the Truth and the Life - it is a journey and we must travel it. We get no limo ride; we don’t get to point at those walking and know that they are going straight to hell and there’s nothing that they can do about it.

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.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

H-E-L-L-O!!!