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.

You and I and everyone else on these threads ask and answer questions all day long.

It's your tone and manner, E, it strikes me wrong and I don't want to participate in discussions with you of this type.

It's an open forum. We choose whom we wish to discuss with and how.

I really do try not to play gotcha and word games.

I like to discuss with those who try to be honest, explain what they mean, speak for themselves, and not try to find some way to hide a dagger, twist a word, misrepresent someone else's beliefs, or seek to win some kind of debate points.

I sometimes get the feeling we're not in agreement on our preferences for discourse on these fora. That's ok, some like to play it the other way; as I said, we each pick who to discuss with. This just isn't for me.

If so, qué será.

Maybe I don't discuss the way you like to either; I could be reading it entirely wrong; but, I'm not going to be cross-examined by you. Honestly, it's not worth the effort to me, and I don't think it adds much if anything to the discussion.

We'll either find a way in-between or stop discussing. I think we've managed to find a way on several occassions. I sincerely hope we can again.

I'm off to bed now - not planning to oversleep tomorrow.

Sweet dreams to you, and God bless..

Furthermore, how does one eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood (without which there is no life in you) apart from the Eucharist?

Since it's late, I'll refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith, every sentence founded on Scripture according to the footnotes given at the site.

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
Chapter XXIX
Of the Lord's Supper
I. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in His Church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body.[1]
II. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of His elect.[4]
III. The Lord Jesus has, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to declare His word of institution to the people, to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]
IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]
V. The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.[11]
VI. That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of gross idolatries.[12]
VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.[14]
VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]

It's your tone and manner

You have asked me questions for months and I have tried to answer every one of them.

For some reason, today you can't or won't give your opinion on a single, seven-word verse of Scripture, and you blame that on my "tone and manner?"

Obviously the clear meaning of that verse contradicts what you've been arguing in support of all day long.

And for your inability, you criticize me.

"Hide a dagger?" Maybe it's the hour and you need rest. All I asked was one polite question after answering HUNDREDS of your questions.

Some of us have read up on the Jesuitical method of debate, D. Some of us recognize your tactics of discussion -- ask as many questions as possible to keep people on the defensive.

Well, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't work when people actually take the time to formulate a response and offer it.

Maybe you want us to understand you only ask the questions and refrain from answering any that are posed to you.

How honest is that?

Whenever you get around to it, I'd be interested in your opinion of whether or not Paul was correct when he wrote: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Thanks in advance for your kind and reciprocal answer.

Read the Bible or read the Westminster. You'll profit from both of them. The Westminster only repeats the Scriptural truth.
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." -- 1 Co 10:16-17

Are you and I also physically in the bread? That's what the words say. Or are we spiritually of the one bread, and that is what the words mean?

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." -- 1 Co 12:13

And so "we drink into one Spirit." We do not literally drink the blood of Christ. That is left-over paganism.

"And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." -- Hebrews 7:23-24,27

Christ offered one sacrifice to God for the sins of His sheep and it was accepted as paid in full. The writer of Hebrews describes those who vainly offer continual sacrifices to God for a debt that has already been paid.

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:11-12,14,18

Again, "where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."

And this offering is what we are to remember.

The mass is a perpetual sacrifice to God, offered by a man who blasphemously presumes himself to be "another Christ."

I'm going to sleep now and think of happier thoughts than these idolatries.

FK: "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.

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. ...... 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.

Well, actually I was practicing "Patriarch-script" to see if we would agree. :) If we do in the words I doubt very much we do in the meaning. I was saying that God chooses His children. In terms of Heaven or hell, those He chooses He loves equally. Those He doesn't choose He "doesn't love" equally. He deals with each group impartially.

... 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]"

It may be a sin for humans, but Commandments are from God to men, not from God to God. Did Jesus sin by telling the disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath? Or, was He exempt because He is Lord of the Sabbath? If God showed no partiality at all, then, for example, all of us would be equally talented in everything.

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?

Bias cannot be honest, really? The first presidential election I got a shot in was Reagan-Mondale in 84. 4 years earlier I had played Reagan in the big school debate as a freshman in high school. I was a solidly biased conservative. Did that make my vote for him in 84 dishonest? Bias certainly CAN be used in a dishonest or negative way, as in your witness example. All I'm saying is that it isn't automatically the case, and of course God is impervious to human misuse of the word.

The Westminster only repeats the Scriptural truth.

If it were only repeating Scriptural truths, it would be Scripture. But it isn't Scripture, is it?

Are you and I also physically in the bread? That's what the words say.

In the same way Acts 7:54 says the Sanhedrin was biting Stephen.

You got the order wrong. Not hard to do when crossing language barriers. We all physically become one by partaking of the same bread. Be that as it may, I'm not going to argue the nuances of simile versus metaphor with you, which is what you're trying to hang your rhetorical hat on.

We do not literally drink the blood of Christ. That is left-over paganism.

I'd hardly call in "left-over" when Christ gives it, what, fifteen verses, teaching exactly that.

The writer of Hebrews describes those who vainly offer continual sacrifices to God for a debt that has already been paid....And this offering is what we are to remember.... The mass is a perpetual sacrifice to God, offered by a man who blasphemously presumes himself to be "another Christ."

This is the problem with Catholic-bashers, they're like little kids playing Army. They continually invent reasons why their pretend shots score hits, and the other side's shots miss. As long as there is no arbiter, the only ones they have to convince is themselves.

Of course the Lord said it best:

We have piped to you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a demon. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

I think in the present case if the Anti-Catholic wisdom were so great it wouldn't have twenty or thirty thousand "children" to explain.

Can’t let your post 8,062 go by without thanking you for recognizing the contemplative tradition in the West.

Some people have often compared the East and West to Mary and Martha respectively. However, both churches have their own traditions of actives and contemplatives. Men of the East no doubt appreciate the writings of St. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and Thomas Merton.

Some of us Western Christians, especially Protestants, I think, are prone to attempt to rationalize the faith. This is a mistake, if one forgets about God's Transcendence. There is a long tradition of the "negative way", even in the West, that recognizes that very little is known about the essence of God.

Heck, we hardly know about our own essence, let alone God's!

Regards

I am unaware of the Holy Spirit refusing to enter an individual. He may, but I don’t know of an occurrance.

Could you expand on your understanding of “If effort means the accomplishing of God’s plan for us on earth per His direction then the effort is in the execution. God wants me to evangelize so He causes me to get up and go do that in various ways.”

Are you a puppet dancing on the end of a string? Does this mean that God is a puppet master that causes everything to occur? Where is the free will?

Thank you for correcting me on the falling away and bringing back process. But isn’t bearing fruit deeds? I thought that deeds were of no effect or importance under Reformed theology. I am not trying to belabour the point, but rather to understand it. I’d appreciate your further thoughts on this.

Perseverance a one-off event - the thief’s dying testimony? I’ve never heard it put that way. It’s hardly perseverance if the span of time is in seconds. Can you avoid sin for a few seconds at a time? Possibly. Can you avoid sin for days, months, years? No, certainly not. None of us can. An interesting concept, but I cannot accept it.

All men are prevented from believing in Jesus Christ if God withholds the Holy Spirit.

WCF
Chapter X
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]

II. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]

Therefore, under Reformed theology, it is not that man WILL not believe in Jesus Christ, it is that man CAN not believe in Jesus Christ.

But hell is real and awful.

Chapter XXXII
I
...And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.

Therefore Reformed statements to the effect that men willfully choose hell make no sense since men are unable to choose heaven, by this theology.

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.