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.

whether or not you believed that God programs people to like where they wind up.

All men are fallen and none seeks God unless and until God first regenerates his heart and renews his mind to the truth of Christ risen.

Obviously, since most of us believe hell is not uninhabitied, God does not cover every man with Christ's atonement or else all men would be judged innocent of their sins and everyone would end up in heaven.

While on earth, the reprobate loves his sin.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." -- John 3:19-20

After he's dead, I doubt he's very happy.

"Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?" -- Malachi 2:17

Notice whom the one was not following.

That's a fascinating image, 1000s.

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." -- Luke 9:49-50

Seems like Christ spent nearly as much time rebuking the Apostles as instructing them.

The only Truth we can be sure of is the truth in God's Word, given to all of us.

Amen.

Do you not see the difference in the teaching? The RCC differs with the OC on the nature of man and the human condition? The RCC teaches that Adam and Eve's sin has been inherited by every man, woman and child and the doctrine is called "original sin."

The OC teaches that when Adam sinned against God, he (Adam) introduced death (not sin) into the world. All men inherit death; the Atonement was not necessary to atone for "original sin," because there is no "original sin" to the OC.

The doctrine of original sin is the difference not monasticism. Do you not see that? or are you being disingenuous?

“So anyway, to say that discussing the Word of Truth outside of the opinion of your church fathers, “is fruitless” could just be a hindrance in going up that ladder of yours.”

You know, 1000, I shouldn’t have used the word fruitless because of course these sorts of discussions teach each of us all sorts of things about the beliefs of other Christians and perhaps even more so about our own beliefs.

One of my many failings here is to assume that everyone is out to “convert” the other to his or her particular beliefs with respect to The Faith. I’ve always thought that “poaching” among Christians is a bad practice. Most Orthodox, at least the “cradle” ones, aren’t real big on trying to tell other Christians what to believe, We believe what we believe. f someone else wants what we have, they are welcome to it; if they don’t want it, well, maybe they’d like to stay for another cup of cafe and a piece of baklava. As we have seen a growing influx of Western converts, that attitude is changing with proselytizing becoming somewhat less rare. Most of us ethnic types feel uncomfortable with that stuff. Of course, we feel at the same time both bemused and just a bit irritated when someone tries it with us. It virtually never works and the idea that discussions such as these could ever lead to any sort of reunion among Christians generally does seem silly. Anyway, that’s what I meant by fruitless and as you can see, it wasn’t a good choice of words.

In the East, I believe the term more often used is “ancestral sin”, a a literal translation of the traditional Greek term.

The differences involve “guilt” more than man’s sinful, fallen, or diseased/deformed nature.

The East does not have the jurisdicial theology, if that’s what you’re referring to.

Kolo or Kosta can give you a more informed explanation.

I’m RC and studied the EO and Latin view quite a bit, though it’s been a while. And I see no major problems here. In fact I suggested to Kosta some time back that this would be a natural and simple place for our bishops to start theologically.

That's ok. First understand I'm no fan of Church unity. I believe Christ established a spiritual church without walls and many multitudes belong to Him, many flocks, big and small. Only He knows who they are. Some here want to scoff at the congregation of 3 or 4 that is perfectly biblically founded and is led by the HS. They malign Christ when they do.

Moreover, they feel that these Christians have nothing to offer. They believe wrongly that they have a personal interpretation of scripture, when the Lord clearly says that where ever 2 or 3 are gathered together in my name, I am there.

Further, we see from Numbers 11 and Luke 9 that even the Elders and Apostles were not above silencing and forbidding others to speak the Word or teach of Christ when they had no license from Him to do so.

We can't know who may be called of Christ to preach and it's clear that even the "Church Fathers", claiming infallibility or not, don't know either.

Under the rules of Jewish Law, Christ had no authority to be a High Priest. He was neither a Levite or a Kohenim. Yet His authority was from the Father and He was revealed to be a priest after the order of Melchizadek.

Since no one here has a clue as to what "my faith" is, there's no reason to believe that I'm out to convert anyone to it. That's true of many others here as well. No one has to enter into any discussion that they aren't interested in.

We post scripture for discussion and debate. Not to bait others or to get them banned. It's a Light, a lamp unto our feet, and we cast it in dark places. We are nobody of any importance but you just never know whom the Lord may be talking to you through. That goes for all of us. Sometimes I have learned the most profound truth from the unlikeliest of sources

the idea that people are initially programmed to hell because they are attracted to it; then the Holy Spirit hops into the scene and reprograms the individual to now be attracted to God.

Your use of the word "programmed" is certainly biased; a better word choice would be "ordained by God."

Do you think people by nature are attracted to sin?

Biblical Christianity teaches that all men's natures were negatively impacted after the fall and thus no man is righteous.

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." -- Romans 3:9-12

All men are fallen and incapable of doing good. Paul even anticipates your pointing fingers at someone else when he admonishes, "are we better than they? No, in no wise."

For Scriptural proof of regeneration, the New Testament as well as the Old are filled with the knowledge of it for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." -- Ezekiel 36:26

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" -- John 3:6-8.

It appears you marvel.

I was also curious about any Scriptural support for that idea.

LOL. You've been given nothing BUT Scriptural support for this entire thread. I guess it's a good sign when you seek it. Just open your eyes. (And perhaps after that you might get around to giving some Scriptural support for your own musings.)

Is it taught that their eternal fate is predetermined: That they may have be born for hell no matter what?

Didn't I answer this already? Everyone is born for hell. God rescues some of us just as He exercises His authority over those who He chose to heal. This is what the scriptures tell us:

Eph 2:1-5 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

We were by nature children of wrath. We were dead. God made us alive.

Frankly, I don't know how much clearer the teaching can be although undoubtedly I will hear Father Fred has reasons to disagreed with this teaching. I cannot help Father Fred's agendas nor can I help Father Fred's muddled understanding based upon what other people had to say. The scriptures are rather clear and God purposely made it so.

The problem with your statement is that you think people can logically choose between heaven and hell. Well, if people could rationally and logically choose, what choice do you think they would make given the two opinions? Why don't they choose heaven?

Fact is, Ephesians is rather clear that all are destined for wrath and God saves some of us. And we don't need the Westminster Confession or TULIP to tell us that. It's right there in Paul's writings.

Exactly. No original sin and no hell, both concepts accepted by the RCC.

And most peculiarly of all, the OC says the ransom of Christ was paid to Satan, and not to God! I still haven't gotten past that one.

Certainly the RCC is more Biblically literate than that.

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.