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.

[jo kus]

You’re kidding, right?

You talking to me?

LOL!

Seriously, what specifically is bothering you?

[kosta50]

In that case, not only do you call me and every other Protestant out there a heretic, you are calling yourself one, also. Some traditions and Papal utterings and Vatican II, the praying to Mary and the saints, etc, were not taught “in the beginning.” They were added on years and centuries later

No, the Church only specified what it believed when challenged by heresies. It did so as one body of Chirst.

Dude, if you say someone’s beliefs are heretical, you are calling him a heretic

I don't know Dude. My name is Kosta. I also don't know what other people believe. I know what I believe. So, if your faith doesn't fit the faith believed by the Church from the beginning, then you know if you are a heretic or not.

[irishtenor]

***I clearly did not include your name in the original post, so why did you think I was attacking you?***

7627 - original post to Dr. E
7639 - I comment on your post
7656 - you comment back to me
7659 - I comment back to you
7670 - you make comment to me about what I believe
7673 - I make my comment back to you that you didn’t like.

In other words, the comment was most certainly refering to me and me alone. It had my name on the post 7670.

[irishtenor]

My faith does not fit what the church says. I do not pray to saints, I do not pray to Mary, I believe Mary was a sinner like everybody else, I believe that Mary had sons and daughters after Jesus was born, etc.

I do believe the Bible is the word of God. I do believe that Jesus came down to earth, died on the cross for my sins, that Jesus and Jesus alone is my salvation, that I contributed nothing toward my salvation, that I will be in heaven when I die, and that I AM NOT A HERETIC. Period.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But where does it say that an INDIVIDUAL WILL be going to heaven?...The Scriptures do not tell us the specific individuals who are going to heaven.

Huh?

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." -- Luke 23:39-43

[irishtenor]

That obviously doesn’t count, because it wasn’t in the gospel... what? It IS in the Gospel? That can’t be right. Well, it didn’t really NAME him, did it?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don't call anyone a heretic. Only you know if your belief is heretical or not. Heresy being, by definition, teaching other than what the Church taught from the beginning. In that sense, I do say that Protestant theology is heresy.

By that definition, the RCC and the EO have strayed far far from the church as evidenced by the many fables each preaches and the obstacles each inserts between God and men and most especially in their incorrect teaching regarding justification by faith alone.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I am glad we agree on at least something.

So we agree that "being chosen by God, being reborn by God and being predestined" all precede faith.

What progress!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

2 Timothy doesn't say they (Scripture) are all equal; he is simply saying they are all good to read because they are all inspired.

Are there varying degrees of God's truth? Are some words of God more truthful than other words of God? Are some words of God less truthful than other words of God?

[1000 silverlings]

Can you give me a bible verse that makes your claim? I would be interested to see that, since your speculations STRONGLY hinge upon this idea that Paul was speaking to you, 2000 years later... Since you are a "sola scripturist", can you show me from Scriptures alone where we get this idea from?

Quite frankly I wonder where your views are from, that you don't believe that the whole bible is written to to men everywhere in all times

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Ephesians 1 :1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

1 John 11:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

2 John1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

1 Peter1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Rev 1

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass

Rev22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

22:20

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

1 Peter 5:14 Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

1 John 5:21 Little children keep yourself from idols, amen

1 Jude 2:17 butbeloved

2 Thess 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

Phillipians 4:21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus

1 Cor 77:17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

[1000 silverlings]

I think I sold it, you’re not getting your money back

[Forest Keeper]

Hopefully, you would agree that Lazarus, for example, was healed - not based on HIS faith, but on the requests and faith of OTHERS (and His own will).

I would agree that he was healed by God's will. I don't think God would not have healed BUT FOR having His mind changed by looking at a full in-box of prayers. :)

Where does the Bible say we are forgiven for sins we have not committed yet or not repented of yet?

It's all over the place. We disagree on whether when God gives something He might take it back again. Caveats and codicils have to be added to almost all salvation verses to conclude that it is only a partial gift, the Apostolic view.

You have already been showed dozens of verses, here are a few I do not remember posting before:

Eph 1:7-8 : 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding.

We are either redeemed or we are not. It is either paid in full or it is not.

Rom 5:10-11 : 10 For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Obviously meaningless and empty words if God takes back His reconciliation. What reason have we to rejoice if we can throw it all away on a whim?

Heb 9:12 : 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

WHOOPS! Not so fast, Christ. :) You obtained no eternal redemption for anyone, you only obtained the possibility for all people to decide for themselves to accept redemption. And of course there are these words that I have posted before:

John 10:28-30 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

This would have to be completely re-written to match Apostolic theology. There are tons more of course. The words of scripture are ones of certainty over and over again.

Not sure what you are denying above, but I think I agree with your "indwelling Spirit" part.

I just meant that I don't think that a guilty conscience is a man-generated thing for the purpose of doing the motions to get into Heaven (and I'm not suggesting that you said that). It is a Spirit-generated thing to bring us closer to Him.

1 John, for example, states that we are righteous AS Christ is righteous.

And of course we both know that the real world proves for certain that this interpretation is not correct. Christ's righteousness meant that He never sinned, and yet we all still do.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

what you think God said to you.

This is one part where Protestants believe RCs have blinders on. For some reason, they dismiss the word of God as a direct means of God speaking to men and instead, they put their trust in fallible men and word-of-mouth instructions.

Do you actually not believe God is speaking to you in Scripture, jo kus? Why in the world did God write the Bible if not to speak to His children and to teach them righteousness and to inform them of their justificaiton by Christ on the cross?

[1000 silverlings]

Proverbs 30 :5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Tell me Jo Kus, is this passage meant for David only? lol

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Rev. 22:18 -- "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

Amen! Great post.

Just imagine all the things that have been "added" by some -- transubstantiation; ministers as "another Christ;" Mary as co-redeemer; praying to the dead; kneeling before wooden statues...

(((shudder)))

[D-fendr]

Why in the world did God write the Bible..

I know you have a special place in your heart for Paul, but.. he's God? ;)

[HarleyD]

Actually its from the later, middle period and was not retracted at the end of his life.

Obviously you did not read the excellent article by Knapp in post #7655 on Augustine and Owen On Perseverance. Knapp specifically addresses your concerns on blasphemy and Augustine (footnotes are located in the article):

The harmony between this assertion and the conviction mentioned above concerning the elects’ certainty of perseverance is found in the distinctions the two authors make between those who receive the gift of perseverance and those who do not. Augustine speaks of the church as those who are believers, some of whom receive the gift of perseverance, continue on as Christians to the end, and are ultimately saved, and some of whom do not receive the gift of perseverance and are accounted as part of the reprobate: those who do not persevere “are not made to differ from that lump which it is plain is condemned, as all go from one into condemnation.” Augustine is clear that this condemnation is reserved even for those who “having heard the gospel and been changed by it for the better, [yet] have not received perseverance.” Augustine does not deny that those who do not persevere have been touched by God—indeed, his description of these people who ultimately will perish is surprising. He consistently refers to them as “believers” and notes that they were “called” by God; they are described as “those whom He gave love by which they might live Christianly,” “some of His own children—whom He has regenerated in Christ—to whom he has given faith, hope, and love,” and “renewed by the laver of regeneration.” Nevertheless, they are actually “children of perdition” and God knows this for he has not elected them.

Augustine elaborates on this notion by distinguishing between those believers who have been called, and those who have been “called according to the purpose,” i.e., the elect. Those given the gift of perseverance “were not so called as not to be elected, in respect of which it is said, ‘for many are called but few are elected;’ but because they were called according to the purpose, they are of a certainty also elected by the election, as it is said, of grace.” In speaking of those who will certainly persevere, Augustine notes:

they are elected because they were called according to the purpose—the purpose, however, not their own, but God’s… . For whoever are elected are without doubt also called; but not whosoever are called are as a consequence elected. Those, then, are elected, as has often been said, who are called according to the purpose, who also are predestinated and foreknown.

This distinction is important to Augustine, and continues to play an important role in his explanation of both the doctrine of perseverance and the experience of some believers who fall away. Thus, some people appear elect to our eyes, even receiving much grace in this life. Yet, their ultimate failure to persevere demonstrates that they are not one of the elect.

HD, I’m always glad to see that someone is reading the Fathers! But try not to proof-text them, HD. Western Protestant exegesis doesn’t work well at all with the Fathers.

LOL!!! I will acknowledge that the early church fathers were in the formulation period of doctrinal development. Mostly they were concerned with stamping out heresy that was springing up around them or warding off the pagan influences. Consequently some of their beliefs were skewed to suppositions without careful study or tainted by pagan customs.

However the East and West pick and choose what church father's writings to accept. In the case of perseverance, there is overwhelming evidence the early church fathers wrote extensively about this subject and agreed that, if chosen by God people will persevere. This just simply does not fit the Orthodox/Catholic doctrinal belief which tries to get people to go to church to receive grace, so it's discarded. It's far more enjoyable to read about the Eucharist. Yet it was the fathers position that if a person was saved they would WANT to attend mass. It wasn't the other way around that you needed to attend mass to be saved.

They say all sorts of things. +John Chrysostomos himself opined that the Most Holy Theotokos sinned.

Well, fancy that. You don't suppose he was referring to:

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

But then there's another church father that probably was wrong. ;O)

[HarleyD]

God planted the tree in the Garden in order to teach us that our freedom is not unlimited.

Why? Why did He create hell?

[HarleyD]

Well, Harley is reading the Church Fathers. It is only a matter of time before he discovers how "un-Protestant" the Church was.

I have been reading the Church Fathers for the last three years when I have a moment of time. If one keeps them in the proper context of time and events, then I find they are completely Protestant. You forget, it was Augustine and Cyprian with his question, "What do you have that hasn't been given you by God?" that made me a Calvinist. Cyprian convinced me. Not Calvin. Without minimizing his great works, Calvin only took the writings of the early fathers and refined them.