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.

[Forest Keeper]

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

So normally the Godparents will be the bio-parents? I thought it was usually another relative or maybe a close friend.

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.

I feel guilty because I love God and want to please Him. Even though He has already paid for my sins, I still want to lead a Godly life while on earth. Asking for forgiveness and repenting of post-salvation sins will help me do that. Salvation and sanctification are two different things.

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 reason to feel the need to repent.

Yes, inputed righteousness. That's what we believe. Our difference is that you do not believe Christ's righteousness is sufficient to save by itself. More must be added to it (our works) in order to enter Heaven. We disagree and say that His righteousness IS sufficient by itself. The works that we do after belief are God's works through us, not our independent free will works.

[kosta50]

Kolo to FK: In all honesty, your problem, and so far as I can see, the Protestant West’s problem, is that it doesn’t understand what the ransom was for or to whom or why it was paid

You mean God didn't kill Himself in order to satisfy His wounded pride? Or that God paid ransom to Himself?  :)

[Kolokotronis]

“You mean God didn’t kill Himself in order to satisfy His wounded pride? Or that God paid ransom to Himself? :)”

Ah, see, being a fellow Balkan Mountain Bandit, you saw right through my apparently simple, but actually sly, conceit! :)

[jo kus]

BBBBaaaaaa. :>)

LOL! Was that a goat or a sheep?

[Kolokotronis]

“So normally the Godparents will be the bio-parents?”

No. Never. Usually its a friend, not so often a relative but it could be someone the priest chooses. In some senses its an expansion of one’s religious family.

“Our difference is that you do not believe Christ’s righteousness is sufficient to save by itself.”

Christ’s “righteousness” destroyed death, FK! We Greeks have a saying, “What do you want, a son-in-law with two eyes?” Gee!

[jo kus]

It cannot happen permanently per the above. It is common for true Christians to fall away temporarily, but God ALWAYS either brings them back or brings them home. :)

Where is the verse that tells us WHO is a "true Christian"? The Scriptures do not tell us that "true Christians" will ALWAYS be brought back. There is no such verse. Are there any verses that discuss "true Christians" vs the ones who fall away and were "never true Christians to begin with"?

Regards

[jo kus]

Why am I part of His flock? Because it was God's good pleasure to appoint me to His righteousness and not to His wrath.

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

Paul is speaking to the Thessalonicans, not to you. Secondly, "salvation" is not refering to going to heaven, but being part of the called, part of the Church. Naturally, one can fall away from this calling.

"For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful hope of judgment and fiery indignation" Heb 10:26-27

God has told me I am part of His flock by the words of Scripture.

"I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me." -- Psalm 119:93

Another verse taken out of context. This refers to the LAW. Certainly, one gets that from reading this VERY LONG Psalms, no? It doesn't refer to going to heaven or hell.

The Holy Spirit quickens us by the word of God. Yes, Jo kus, I believe that. And it is a sad situation that your church does not reaffirm this truth in your mind.

We affirm that. The sad truth is that you STOP there, not noting that the Bible has more to say about such matters. Rather than hear the truth, you pick and choose the verses that make you feel good about yourself and forgeting the other ones... That is why you revert to quoting the same few verses of the Gospel over and over. You think those five verses says it all, and ignore everything else that Jesus said...

"But if the righteous should leave his righteousness and commit iniquity, [and] do according to all the abominations that the wicked [man] does, shall he live? All his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned; by his rebellion in which he has trespassed and by his sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die". Ez 18:24

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of the heavens" Mat 5:20

Note, it says YOUR righteousness. Jesus NEVER speaks about HIS righteousness taking your place...

Persevere...

Your church tells you to be uncertain, fearful and not "presumptuous."

Baloney. Our Church doesn't tell us to be uncertain or fearful. You can drop the drama, please... Our Church tells us to read the Scriptures. ALL of them, not just a few verses here and there taken out of context so we can have warm fuzzies about our eternal destiny or invent some idea that we are of the flock and all that remains for us to do is... nothing...

[kosta50]

So normally the Godparents will be the bio-parents?

No, never. The only requirement is that they are Eastern Orthodox.

I feel guilty because I love God and want to please Him

So, do you feel "guilty" because you love your wife too? You want to please her out of guilt? You equate love with guilt?

Even though He has already paid for my sins, I still want to lead a Godly life while on earth

That's you choice, but not a requirement in your faith. You could just as well sit back and enjoy the ride, do whatever you wish, and that would change nothing.  Which brings back the issue of what pleases God? If the end result is the same whether you lead godly life or do nothing of the sort, you are "saved," then obviously nothing we do pleases God. He saves you regardless, right?

Salvation and sanctification are two different things

But what does sanctification accomplish?

Our difference is that you do not believe Christ's righteousness is sufficient to save by itself

LOL! FK, He made it possible for all of mankind to be pulled out of the of the pit of darkness our ancestors fell into. It was sufficient for all the generations, past,present, and future. He gave everyone a free ticket to paradise. If we don't end up there that's our fault. In other words "work out your salvation" (cf Phil 2:12) through Christ; He bought everyone a ticket. You want Him to carry you luggage too? 

[irishtenor]

***Your sweeping generalization that anyone who calls on Christ is a Christian is simply absurd. ***

Jailer: What must I do to be saved?
Paul: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

If you won’t believe the Bible, you will believe anything else.

I believe in the Jesus Christ as found in the Bible. I believe that Jesus Christ saved me without my effort. I believe that I did nothing to warrant, invoke, instigate this salvation. I believe that Jesus Christ saved me because his Father told him too. I believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father and that he died for my sins. I believe that all of my sins have been paid for by Jesus on the cross, and I cannot do anything to purchase any minute amount of that salvation. I believe that when I die, I will be in heaven with God the Father and his Son by his side, and I will worship them forever and ever.

Now, my challenge: Which of these, if any, are heresy?

[kosta50]

Ah, see, being a fellow Balkan Mountain Bandit, you saw right through my apparently simple, but actually sly, conceit! :)

Read you like a book! :)

[irishtenor]

Not sure, but God will separate them at the end :>)

[1000 silverlings]

Was reading in Pink how there are several kinds of Christians. There's the Church-made Christian-- he gets sprinkled at birth or not at all, and presto--Christian. Then there's the self-made Christian-- he decides he is one, even though he is a natural man who has no concept of things spiritual, and is like the little girl who came home and told her mommy that she was the smartest kid in the class. The mommy says "I'm so glad to hear it! Did the teacher tell you that?" "Oh, no", she said,"Well did you win some awards, gold stars?" "Oh no," she said. "Well how do you know you are then?" "Oh I found it out by myself", she said.

Then there's the God-made Christian. The only reason he is one is because of God's grace.

Eph 2:8 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

ROTFLOL! Your tag is teriffic!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Make that TERRIFIC!

[irishtenor]

:>O

[irishtenor]

My problem is with those who call my beliefs apostasy, heresy, or unbiblical.

[kosta50]

Jailer: What must I do to be saved? Paul: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. If you won’t believe the Bible, you will believe anything else

More fleeting generalizations. Let's see what the Bible says one must do to be saved (by no means an exhaustive list):

1. follow the commandments (Mt.19:18-19 )
2. love ( 1 John 4:7, Luke 10:26), ask (Mat 7:7-8),
3. be born again (John 3:3)
4. use the right words (Mat 12:37)
5. do the right things (Ps 62:12, Eze 18:27, Mat 16:27; 25:34-46, John 5:29, Rom 2:6, 13, 2 Cor 5:10, 1 Pet 1:17, Rev 2:23; 20:12-13)
6. believe the right things (Romans 3:28; 5:10, Gal 2:16, Eph 2:8)
7. do and believe the right things (James 2:17)
8. eat the flesh of the Son of man (John 6:53-54)
9. be more righteous than scribes and pharisees (Mat 5:20)
10. be poor (Mat 19:23-24, Luk 6:24, James 5:1)
11. chosen by the Father (John 6:37)
12. have children (1 Tim 2:14-15)
13. persevere until the end (Mat 10:22, Mark 13:13)
14. be predestined (Rom 8:29-30; 9:11, Eph 1:4-5)
15. call on the name of the Lord  (Act 2:21)
16. believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16)
17. repent (Luke 13:13, 2 Pet 3:9)

etc, etc. etc.

There are actually many, many more "prescriptions" given in the Bible that tells us what it takes to be saved...take your pick.

I believe that Jesus Christ saved me because his Father told him too

This is a Trinitarian heresy, dear friend. Christian understanding is that God the Father does not order the Word and the Spirit like some lesser "gods." God does not order Himself. God does  not kill Himself to satisfy His own wounded "pride," nor does God use Himself as ransom to Himself to propitiate divine justice.

I believe that all of my sins have been paid for by Jesus on the cross, and I cannot do anything to purchase any minute amount of that salvation

His sacrifice bought you a ticket to paradise. Whether you get there or not is up to you. You will have to  work out your own salvation (Phil 2:12) through Christ. 

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Re: God's partiality -- Do the EO have an Old Testament?

"Remember me, O LORD, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation;

That I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance." -- Psalm 106:4-5

[irishtenor]

***Paul is speaking to the Thessalonicans, not to you.***

Ok, so we throw out 1 & 2 Thessalonians. What other part of the Bible do you want to throw out, Mr. Jefferson?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Then there's the God-made Christian. The only reason he is one is because of God's grace.

Amen!

"Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day." -- Deuteronomy 10:1-4-15

---

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." -- Psalm 33:12

---

"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake" -- Phil. 1:29