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.

Mark: Do you frogmarch your adult children through life? Or, as your children grow and mature, do you gradually let them go?

HD: If I had any say I would frogmarch them through life. Get the law degree. Marry that girl. Have this many kids. Live in this location. Of course, I'm not omnipotent, omniscience, or omnipresent

This only shows us that we all use the same words (i.e. love) and have different definitions of them. Who's to argue there is not "love" in an S&M couple? They are, after all, perfectly compatible! Some people think love is beating their children into obedience.

Perhaps the best way for them to learn not to touch hot stoves would be to actually entice them to touch red hot stove! After all, that's just a step shy of frogmarching them through a fire! In either case, the "postive" aspect of such "love" is that they'd never do it agian, right? Absurd; distorted; deformed.

D-fender to Dr. E: In case I haven't made it clear by now, my rebuttal to TULIP proof texts is the whole of the Gospel. It's moot if TULIP is true, pertinent if TULIP is false

Exactly. The only question is to determine who are Christians (those who start with the Gospel and interpret through it all other scripture) and who are not (those who start with other sources and work towards the Gospel, or ignore it most or all of the time).

I love cookies, but they don’t love me

Cookies are things. They don't care one way or another. Adam was a "cookie" one second before God breathed life into him. That same life is in you and me. It's that same breath God gave him that quickens all of us. We are not dead. We are in a deep pit from which we cannot come out even if we wanted to on our own. After Chirst, God's hands is extended deep into that pit and everyone can grab it and be pulled out. That is His grace.

Actually, we CAN’T love God until he loves us by giving us his grace. No one seeks God, no one loves God, without him loving us first

Of course He did; we didn't exist at one point and He always is. More importantly, God loves everyone. He even teaches us to love everyone, including our enemies, those who persecute us. But, the fact is, many whom God loves don't love Him. So, the fact that He did love us first does not mean everyone loves Him back. Love is not always returned with love.

Why do you not answer my questions? Why respond with another question?

I disagree with your first staement, which is obvious fom the posts I made regarding the LDS. Your sweeping generalization that anyone who calls on Christ is a Christian is simply absurd.

Second, your question whether you are a Christian is something I can't answer because I don't know. I can't see what's inside your head.

As far as heresies are concerned, I would say they cannot be heresies and Christianity at the same time.

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.

Sure, and since we do not earn our way into Heaven because of our works, then God is impartial with how He deals with all of His children, and He is also impartial with how He deals with all those not His children.

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

No, that would be dishonesty. One can be both partial and honest at the same time.

“The only question is to determine who are Christians (those who start with the Gospel and interpret through it all other scripture) and who are not (those who start with other sources and work towards the Gospel, or ignore it most or all of the time).”

So Christianity started around 90 A.D. when John wrote his Gospel and the chief cornerstone of the church was leading those listening to Him astray, since He said, (Jhn 5:39) “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me”, and Peter could not have been a christian since the Gospels were not completed until after his death and he taught from the Old Testament.

No wonder you need tradition and early church fathers to undergird the church; the Cornerstone and foundation mentioned by Paul are in reality shifting sand since they wrote the New Testament and taught based on the prophecies of the Old being accomplished in the New Era.

HD, when the Calvinists pray for the sick, what do they expect? For God to change His mind? Or do they praise God for causing the sickness (after all, He is behind tidal waves and hurricanes, why not sickness, right)? Or do they praise God for causing the sickness (after all, He is behind tidal waves and hurricanes, why not sickness, right)? And when a person dies, do Calvinists say "Thank you Lord" and jump from joy? These were your questions.

I originally answered the last one in a somewhat flippant manner. No smiley faces, so how would you know?

Let’s start again. when the Calvinists pray for the sick, what do they expect? For God to change His mind? God does not change His mind. Calvinists pray like David that God will be merciful and like David accept His will.

Or do they praise God for causing the sickness (after all, He is behind tidal waves and hurricanes, why not sickness, right)?Calvinists believe that nothing happens that God does not ordain and everyone is commanded to give thanks to Him in all things. (I am not to wallow in pity of the circumstance but to see my position in Christ and my ministry in the suffering He has ordained for me.)

when a person dies, do Calvinists say "Thank you Lord" and jump from joy?

The “jumping for joy” can only happen if a Calvinist has reason to believe that the person who died possessed belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior; the Calvinist believes it is far better to be with the Lord than to be here. A Calvinist does not joy in the death of a nonbeliever just as God does not.

Is a Calvinist perfect? No. Only the Godman is perfect.

Of course, and that's exactly what I asserted when I said that God is just to the righteous and the wicked, that He is just to all.

God is not "partial" to those who "worketh good," but just. He is also just to those who "worketh evil." God is always just to everyone (Kosta50, #6,991)

You may have joined the discussion out of context and missed that part, so now who knows how many posts later we come back to the very initial statement that didn't ring true in some ears.

Dr. E thinks God is partial (post #6,986) even though the Bible says He is not. In fact, I reminded her (post #6,983) that the NT unambiguously says partiality is a sin,

"But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." [St. James 2:9]"

which she ignored because she doesn't represent her acceptable rpertoir of verses, and instead insisted that God is (her emphasis) partial.

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

FK: No, that would be dishonesty. One can be both partial and honest at the same time.

So, now we are throwing in another condition in order to prove the unbiblical assertion that God is partial!? Bias cannot be honest. What if the witness thinks that what the accused did is not really a crime but he knows that the society says it is, and he begs to differ?

The NT says partiality is wrong period. A biased judge is not a characteristic of a good judge. Truth is truth, whether we like it or not. We may consider ourselves "good" Christians, but that doesn't mean that in the impartial eyes of God we are. By being impartial, God is always just to everyone, those who "worketh good" and those who "doeth evil."

He said, (Jhn 5:39) “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

That is in the KJV version, which is a fraud. The grammatical form is not imperative (command), but simple present.

Imperative does not follow from the context (vs. 39-40) which you neglect to include.

"[You] search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."

[notice the word unwilling].

Peter could not have been a christian since the Gospels were not completed until after his death and he taught from the Old Testament

Your logic escapes me. St. Peter taught the Gospel taught to him by Christ.

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.