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]

Ahem. Calvin called mankind worthless. The late, great Calvin Himself (Peace Be Upon Him) called mankind worthless. You may say a Nicene Creed, followed by the Lord’s Prayer, followed by 10 Hail Marys, the Doxology, and the Guadalupe Prayer.

LOL! No, he first has to ask for forgiveness. We Catholics do not believe all of our future sins and mistakes are a priori forgiven before they are even committed, much less repented of...

Regards

[Dr. Eckleburg]

When all you've got is snide comments and empty hyperbole, that's all you've got.

Return to the Scriptures, Mark, and read them. You'll be glad you did.

[MarkBsnr]

“There is a saying: “Pray like a Calvinist and preach like an Arminian”.

And this doesn’t clue you in on the errancy of Calvinism? May the Lord shine upon you and whack you on the head.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

We Catholics do not believe all of our future sins and mistakes are a priori forgiven before they are even committed

Did Christ die to pay for the sin you will commit tomorrow?

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

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;

From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:10-18

I don't know where the RCC gets the bulk of its doctrines, but it sure isn't from Scripture.

[jo kus]

"Worthless" may be a poor word choice, but the rest of the site is excellent. (And as you noted, by "worthless" the writer means man's good works are not the reason for his salvation, but the result of his salvation.)

Talk about an understatement. To the "reformed" mind, God cannot be God unless creation is worthless. No, we can't assign mankind any value, so the thinking goes, even when God recreates His Spirit within the new creation... That would impede on God's Sovereignty!

As long as you are stuck in that philosophical dead-end, that lack of transcendance you assign to God and His ways, you will never understand that God can be sovereign WHILE raising man up, "making him little less than a god" - all the while, realizing that God is STILL sovereign, because the "lifting of man" is ABSOLUTELY dependent upon God. Man's cooperation does not take ANYTHING from God, because they do not exist on the same plane. We aren't talking about "how much does God do and how much does man do" in pulling a cart...

God is not jealous of His own creation. God GIVES of Himself to creation. WHY would God be jealous of creation's exaltation? It is HIS work!

Regards

[Quix]

Curious.

And what did Christ go into hell for during His 3 days His body was in the grave?

[MarkBsnr]

Dear Dr. E.

I have the full Church of Jesus Christ on Earth. I glory in it and I thank the Lord every day that I am privileged to be one of His.

I read the Scriptures - more than any of my Protestant friends, as a matter of fact. I regard the WCF as a shining example of what happens when men believe that they can replace God. When power-seeking individuals replace the role of the Church. When preachers replace the role of Christ.

You can follow the Church of Jesus Christ.

Or, you can follow men, as you have been doing. You can follow the Church of Jean Calvin. Your choice.

I’m not sure that I’d bet on the position of standing in front of the Lamb of God and quoting Calvin, though. You may want to go back to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for direction. We would not turn you away. And neither, we believe, would Jesus. All you have to do is repent and be baptized in the Lord.

Are you ready to walk the Via?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

All men's good works are worthless, jo kus. That's what Scripture tells us.

OTOH, the RCC tells men that their good works will get them to heaven, thereby contradicting God's word and diminishing the work of Christ on the cross.

As for the reprobates, they will burn in hell, so I'm not sure how much God cares for them. Not a lot, it would seem.

But for those whom God elected to salvation through faith in His Son, it's a very different story. God loves them so much He gave His only begotten Son to pay for every one of their sins, yesterday's, today's and tomorrow's.

It sometimes seems like the only way the RCC thinks it can score any points in these debates is to ridicule and create straw men no one is defending. If that's all you've got, that's all you've got.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I read the Scriptures - more than any of my Protestant friends, as a matter of fact.

LOLOL. (That's all. Just LOLOL...)

Are you ready to walk the Via?

God has graciously protected me from the many errors of Rome for which I thank Him daily. Thus, I do not fall down to the stock of a tree.

[jo kus]

Did Christ die to pay for the sin you will commit tomorrow?

As usual, Dr. E, you misunderstand Catholic teaching. Thus, your attacks fall on empty space, hitting the straw man of your OWN construction.

Of course Christ paid for the sins that will be committed tomorrow. And as I have already said and you have not commented on, Christ died for the sins of ALL men, the World, even non-elect men and women. ALL sin has been sufficiently expiated for by Christ's one time sacrifice.

Now, Scriptures says that God desires that all men be saved. God has offered salvation for all men, since salvation comes from the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is available to EVERYONE. Now, if a Calvinist was able to follow the Scriptures, they'd find that one must FIRST ASK for repentance. Only THEN, is forgiveness of sin granted.

Thus, as usual, Catholic doctrines remain in place, backed by Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition.

Here is one example of MANY, MANY such verses:

"Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each one according to his ways, said the Lord GOD. Repent and turn [yourselves] from all your iniquities, so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your iniquities by which ye have rebelled, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I do not desire the death of him that dies, said the Lord GOD; therefore turn [yourselves], and ye shall live." Ez 18:30-32

Note, the last verse here. God does not desire the death of him that dies... It is only the Calvin god that desires that men go to eternal torture for not obeying a standard that man cannot even uphold...

So the reformers teach that God willingly makes vessels of death to condemn... That is in direct contradiction to this verse, and many others, to include Paul's quote to Timothy that you continuously side-step.

God offers salvation to those who heed God's graces to ask for forgiveness. How sad that Jean Calvin has so bedazzled you and completely fouled your understanding of who God is.

Regards

[MarkBsnr]

The Catholic Church gets the bulk of its doctrines from Scripture. Are you Pauling on us again?

Are you trumping the Gospels with misinterpretations of Paul? Are you bringing the blackness of ancient heresies back into modern dy?

Do you not pay attention to the Church Fathers, thinking that you are wise beyond them, that you are true beyond them, that you by yourself (with the crutch of the sainted Calvin) are capable of forming your own theology that is correct and true? Are you comparing one man to all? Are you saying that the Lord saying that He will accept men into Heaven is equivalent to sending them to hell?

Reformed theology is poor and sparse. I do not wonder that it has not the attractiveness to mankind compared to the Gospels. The only question is in what year the Calvinist gospel will finally suicide. The Shakers did some years back. Do we have some bets on the Calvinists?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And as I have already said and you have not commented on, Christ died for the sins of ALL men, the World, even non-elect men and women. ALL sin has been sufficiently expiated for by Christ's one time sacrifice.

LOL. I haven't commented on this error? LOL. I've commented on this error so much it should be my tag.

If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. Not one drop of Christ's blood was shed in vain. All of Christ's sheep will be brought safely home.

So the reformers teach that God willingly makes vessels of death to condemn

Last time I checked, Romans was in Rome's Bible, too.

[MarkBsnr]

If you’re not ready to walk the Via, then you may not get in through the narrow door.

And you can LOL whilst gnashing your teeth to your heart’s content.

[MarkBsnr]

Speaking of straw men, you keep claiming that the the Catholic Church tells men that their good works will get them into Heaven.

You really don’t get it, do you?

Your elitist, selectivist, bingo elections are ludicrous when compared to Scripture. Give it up. Just come back. God loves everyone; he does not wish to trash the bulk of humanity into the everlasting fires of hell. God loves mankind, not just those picked out of the lottery of the everlasting.

[wmfights]

Frankly, the Apocrypha really aren't a big deal to me.

It really is puzzling. If our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST did not consider them Scripture, why would a bunch of clerics think their opinion is more important. It strikes me as the height of hubris.

[wmfights]

That is after the Resurrection, when He directs the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel

Thank you jo.

You might not have noticed with all the back slapping and high fives this was before Catholic came to mean Rome.

[MarkBsnr]

You need to back up a few posts.

Our Lord and Saviour did consider them Scripture.

It’s just that that Saint Luther and Saint Calvin did not, since it varied with their own view of God, theology and, frankly, what lined their pockets.

[wmfights]

I don't know where the RCC gets the bulk of its doctrines, but it sure isn't from Scripture.

Several RC's have posted me saying their church is more authoritative than Scripture. Now I understand why I can't find any Scriptural basis for all the stuff about Mary.

[wmfights]

The Catholic Church gets the bulk of its doctrines from Scripture.

Why just the "bulk"?

Can you detail which doctrines or dogmas you profess that are not Scriptural?

[Forest Keeper]

No, this "god" delights in making humans to condemn them to eternal torture. He "ordained" them to sin, judging them as condemned, despite being made that way.

I'm sorry that the Christian God doesn't operate to your standards of fairness.

Read the Old Testament through the lenses of Jesus Christ, since Tradition points out that it was written with Him in mind. Oh, and Jesus says that in the Gospels, as well.

Jesus showed respect and reverence for the OT, so I'm not sure the result would be what you expect. Plus, I doubt you can show me where the Bible says to read the OT through the lens of the current Apostolic Church. That would leave the OT in ruins, at least according to some posters here. Rather than discard one in favor of the other, our approach is to reconcile them so that both can be true.

[FK to Kosta:] "I've seen other posters give you several examples of where Jesus directs His ministry to the Gentiles, not the least of which is the Great Commission."

That is after the Resurrection, when He directs the Catholic Church to spread the Gospel.

What difference does that make? Kosta has maintained that Jesus NEVER directed His ministry to the Gentiles. The Great Commission clearly belies that.