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.

This is not Reformed theology. There absolutely IS a transformation, a real one. We are a "new creation". The old has gone, the new has come. A remnant still remains however. Thus Paul says that whatever he wants to do he doesn't, and whatever he does not want to do, this he keeps on doing. But Paul's message is not that we can't live for Christ. His message is very positive.

Forgive me, I can't keep up with all the Protestant beliefs... Unfortunately, I mixed Lutheranism and Calvinism there in my sentence. Disregard the "extrinsic justification" part. However, it is my belief that Calvinism crushes man so that God can 'retain' His sovereignty. Anything credit to man, even under the auspices of grace, is discounted by the 'reformed'.

I would say that we understand primary and secondary causes just fine. We just define and use them differently from you. (You may have seen some of the recent discussion of them in the context of the WCF.) Anyway, in the theater of sin, we say that God ordains it as a primary cause, but man carries it out as the secondary cause. Thus WE say that man gets the blame for it. You, OTOH, apparently say that primary and secondary causes do not apply to sin. But if they did, you would say that God as the primary cause gets all the blame, thus you accuse us of believing that God is the author of sin.

Really? Well, if man is the secondary cause of sin, why is it so difficult to understand that man is the secondary cause of his own salvation? I do not understand your refusal to attribute to man anything of value - although you claim that man is transformed and is a new creation in Christ - and cannot be so of his own effort, but of God.

Now, in the theater of salvation, you give credit for salvation to both God as primary cause and to man as secondary cause (grace + works = salvation). We, OTOH, give all the credit for salvation to God as primary cause. Thus, you say that for us man is "crushed" or "worthless" since we glorify God alone. We will never apologize for giving God all the glory.

IF you understand "primary" and "secondary" causes, then why is God alone glorified when it is God Himself who raises up man and saves Him? Why do you continue to not accept that secondary causes ARE real, and not abstract? Will man be saved if He refuses? Secondary causes are not fictional.

What are you talking about? The Reformers were the ONLY ones who clung to universals and antithesis. The Reformers combated the Renaissance philosophers and later modern philosophers, who were forced to give up their attempt to find a universal to reconcile man and God.

I think you need to consider that the roots of the Reformation PRECEDE the Reformation... Nominalism, that corrupted result of Scholasticism, an empiricism that wounded the mystery of the faith, was the philosophy that Luther and Calvin operated under. Ockham, for example, was Luther's hero.

For example, the Catholics were pushing the idea of an incomplete Fall, thus leaving man with an autonomous intellect.

Whether the Fall was incomplete or not does not take away the necessity of grace entirely dependent upon from God.

A philosophy with no absolutes that is controlled by relativism. Again, the Reformers were the ones who fought against this.

If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. Protestantism is BUILT upon the individualism of relativism. The current Pope has strongly written against relativism. Meanwhile, more and more relativists form more independent communities based upon their OWN opinions. Apparently, Christianity is no longer a revealed religion, in their eyes, but one of relativism.

Please.

Nope. I do understand, however that God does save people from physical harm on occasion, if post-seeming-miracle folks are to be believed. We believe in predestination to Heaven, not to hell. If you are hell-bent (!) on going to hell, then I suppose that you eventually get there. We do not say that God does not save people; we say that God saves all except for those who will not be saved.

Well, I was clearly speaking of spiritual salvation, and the RCC position appears to be that God does not interfere with that. My point was that you would blame me for not interfering in a physical situation (less important), yet God is prevented from interfering in the more important situation. I see that as inconsistent.

As far as predestination goes, I think our respective views of it are wholly incompatible. For us, predestination involves the sovereign choices of God. He independently chooses those who will be saved. The independence is what makes it a true act, and not just the act of a stenographer. :) Therefore, double predestination is simply the logical continuation of single predestination. If God independently chooses the saved, then logically, He chooses those who will not be saved by default.

The explanation of primary and secondary causes in the WCF is designed to obscure and not be clear. If God is the author of all, including all people, then the WCF’s explanation of primary and secondary is meaningless, since the author of an object that is designed to operate in a specific fashion, unless he specifically stops or alters the operation, is expressly responsible for that object’s actions.

The explanation of the WCF is very clear to those of like minds. It is not surprising that it would be unclear to those who disagree with everything that is being said anyway. :) As I said recently to Joe, apparently your side does not believe that the concept of primary and secondary causes applies to the theater of sin. Under that presupposition, the WCF would make no sense to you on this point. We, however, disagree and say it does apply.

If I install a brake system that is designed to fail in a car, then I am responsible for the failure of that brake system. If God installs a guaranteed failure mechanism in us that ensures that we go to hell, then God is responsible, not us.

No, the brake system has no will of its own, so it cannot be considered a secondary cause in the WCF sense. In your example, you would be the primary and only cause.

If I’m walking by a house (with window close to the sidewalk - I’m not really a peeping Tom) and I see a 3 year old striking matches and starting a fire, then I am legally AND morally obligated to step in and save that child and any others that I become aware of.

From a legal standpoint, this is not correct in the United States. In this country, unless there is a duty present (e.g. parent-child), no one is required to help a "victim". Now, a few foreign countries DO have laws as you suggest, but not here. As to morality, I would agree with you that there is a moral requirement to act. But as I said, in Apostolic theology, God somehow escapes this morality even when the victims are God's own children. IOW, under your beliefs, God would be arrested even under U.S. law. :)

You know, sometimes the internet is not our friend. Sometimes it only confuses the truth, for instance, when snippets are offered as proof. I apologize for the length of this response, but I didn't want anyone to nmiss it. Especially the RCs who post it because they got it wrong...

Luther: The Infallible Church Declared The Contents of Scripture?

"We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."- Martin Luther
That’s a fairly incredible quote from Luther, isn’t it? Roman Catholics frequently use it when discussing the Canon of Scripture:
“In his Commentary on John, discussing the sixteenth chapter of that Gospel, Luther admitted, "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." [Source: Brian Harrison, Logic and Protestantism's Shaky Foundations (This Rock Volume 3, Number 12 December 1992)]
“Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John "We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." [Source: Jason Evert, How to Defend the Deuterocanonicals (This Rock Volume 11, Number 9, September 2000)].
These are but two examples from This Rock Magazine- an actual Roman Catholic publication. If one were to do a quick Internet search for this quote, one finds the quote used often and vigorously. See for example, this search. The on-line defenders of Rome seem to love this quote… as if it actually proves a point.
In the above articles from This Rock Magazine, the quote is supposed to prove that Luther believed the Roman Catholic Church determined the canon of Sacred Scripture. Luther is portrayed to be saying the Papacy gave us the Bible. The papacy (maybe even by infallible pronouncement) determined the canon of Scripture for Luther. Brian Harrison thinks the quote is an example of Luther at times coming “…close to recognizing that sola scriptura was false, insofar as he was relying, to some extent, on the despised "Papists" and not only on the Bible.” See, Luther said it himself: the Papists gave us the Bible, without them doing so, we would have never known what Scripture is.
How To Respond:
1. Locate a Reference or Citation: Commentary or Sermon?
First, thank the Roman Catholic using this quote for providing a reference. Normally, the citation given will simply be “Luther’s commentary on John 16.” Now this is not totally correct- the citation is from Luther’s Sermons on John 16 [LW 24], not a commentary. Luther preached on John 14-16 after March 14, 1537, finishing in either June or July of 1537. The sermons were taken down and edited by Caspar Cruciger. Luther actually credits Cruciger for writing the book. In other words, Luther didn’t sit down and write an exegetical commentary on John. Rather, this quote was the result of preaching, and someone else writing it down the way he heard it.
2. Locate a Translation: Do Catholics Actually Read Luther?
The question that I always consider when reading Roman Catholics quote Luther, is if they’ve actually read Luther. This quote serves as a great opportunity to find out. The quote as typically cited, “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it” is not the translation from the standard English 55 volume version of Luther’s Works [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House]. Nor is it from the earlier small English set of Luther’s Works (known as the Philadelphia or Holman edition of the Works of Martin Luther), because that set doesn’t contain Luther’s Sermons on John 16. So where did the Roman Catholic citing this quote get it from? My guess is they can’t tell you, because they haven’t actually read Luther’s Sermons on John 16. They have this quote which they've read somewhere, and thought it made their point. It's probably the result of cut-and-paste, not research.
3. Put the Quote in a Context: What Does Luther Really Mean?
In expounding on John 16, Luther discusses how those who call themselves the “True Church” actually became corrupt and began persecuting true believers- just as the Jewish leadership did to the Old Testament prophets (like Jeremiah). Luther says,
“Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: “Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself.”” [LW 24:303].
But Luther insists they who make this claim are just like the Old Testament Jewish leadership. They claimed to be God’s people (and at one time they were), but because of sin and corruption, they actually persecuted God’s true people. They did not heed the words of the prophets. Luther notes that the plight of the true Christian in such a circumstance is exceedingly difficult. He says,
“This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. “You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil,” “You are preaching against God’s people and the church, yes, against God Himself.” For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it." [LW 24:304].
Then, comes the citation in question:
“Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.” [LW 24:304].
Is Luther conceding an infallible church gave us the canon? Absolutely not. Is Luther saying an infallible extra-biblical tradition produced the Canon? Absolutely Not. Luther is simply saying that he learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the Church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in. The visible church indeed promulgated the Scriptures and Christian doctrine. Who can deny this? But simply because they did so, does not mean the visible church in Rome infallibly declared the canon of Scripture.
Luther held that the Church was God's hand maid and servant. It does not create God's Word, God's Word creates the Church. As the servant of the Word, it gives the Word to the body of Christ, His people. Indeed, who would know God's Word if it were not for the Church continually upholding it and pointing God's people to it in each generation? One shouild be able to sense the thrust of Luther's argument: when the visible Church goes bad, going against it is an awesome and fearful undertaking. The Church is God's handmaid. It is to protect and promulgate the Word- but what happens when the servant disobey's the Master? Who can condemn the handmaid and not be fearful?
The quote as cited by Roman Catholics has nothing to do with an infallible Church declaring the contents of Scripture. The quote isn't discussing Canonicity. The quote isn't discussing if Rome gave us an infallible list of biblical books. Rather, the quote is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear as Luther continues. Old Testament Judaism had God's law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?
“But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’ ” (Hos. 1:10; 2:23).” [LW 24:304].
Luther realizes that even within the corrupt papacy, the true church exists:
“Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.” [LW 24:305].
“In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.”[LW 24:309].
From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master.

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.