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.

[blue-duncan]

“How many times can one be baptized?”

“Once. It’s the beginning of the process. The process is different for every soul. Every one of us is given the same Seed, but we are different soil.”

But if you can lose the “seed” by sinning don’t you have to start the process over again?

“The use of “recreated” is a western concept; the idea of restoriation is more in line with Orthodox doctrine what Christ came for:”

No, what Christ said was “Ye must be born again” not restored. Paul says “If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, old things have passed away, all things are become new”, not restored.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "He had two OPEN BLASPHEMERS appear right in front of his face, and yet he still stood in Christ's place and performed the sacrament for them."

Did you watch the film?

Yes, I saw the tape. There was absolutely no mistaking these people for who and what they were. They were open and obvious that their intention was to disgrace the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed all of of Christianity. They succeeded with the help of the Bishop. I have all sympathy for the fact that anyone, Bishops included, can be taken by surprise and make a mistake. The tape shows that this Bishop had no such excuse. He was in the heart of perhaps the most hateful-towards-Christianity section of the entire country. For him to claim ignorance is not credible. The Bishop knew where he was and he absolutely should have known what the possibilities were to expect. Intellectually, I give the Bishop credit for being greater than a complete idiot, which is what he would have to have been to be surprised by what actually happened in the heart of San Francisco.

[kosta50]

Really? Do you believe God created a New Covenant to correct an error?

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second [Heb 8:7]

[D-fendr]

Which authority laid down the principles of the Westminster Confession?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements! Sorry to hear it wasn't well received for you though.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your insights and for those beautiful Scriptures!

Do men determine whether or not there is light within them, or does God?

Excellent point.

For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness. - Psalms 18:28

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. – John 1:3-4

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. – John 3:19

Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. – I Th 5:5

Praise God!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

True Christian humility is knowing the Triune God has done it all -- God elects; Christ redeems and the Holy Spirit sanctifies.

Peace and joy as well:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. – Psalms 23:4

For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. – 2 Tim 1:12

My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. – John 10:29

[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. – Hebrews 13:5

Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. – Philippians 4:7-8

To God be the glory!

[Forest Keeper]

We can't go wrong by stating God's sovereignty too often, considering the world conspires to erase it entirely and replace it with men's "good choices" and "free will" righteousness.

Amen, Dr. E.! Your scripture quotes ring true, as always.

[tracer]

Come on in. The water’s fine....

[D-fendr]

I realize your personal creed is “I know nothing.”; however, organized religion, churches, would not last long adopting this. They have “Statement of Principles” or “Confessions” or “Catechisms”.

Using some structure of authority they determine what they hold to be true and what they teach concerning their theology including their interpretation of scriptures.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Which authority laid down the principles of the Westminster Confession?

The authority of the Scriptures upon which the WCF is based. It is that same authority by which we preach Christ risen every day on FR.

THE CALLING OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY

"The Westminster divines did not, of course, regard the authority of Parliament or of any civil magistrate as essential to the calling of an assembly such as the Westminster Assembly was. In Chapter XXXI, which deals with "Synods and Councils", the divines also said: "As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies" (Section II). Nevertheless the Westminster Assembly was actually convened by Ordinance of Parliament.

The Assembly consisted of some one hundred and fifty members. Thirty were members of Parliament, the remainder divines, representing the chief parties of English Protestants except that of Archbishop Laud..."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for those perfect Scripture choices.

For thou wilt light my candle: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness. - Psalms 18:28

Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. – I Th 5:5

Amen!

[kosta50]

We [Calvinists], however, see it [Old Testament] as God's Holy word

So do we (Orthodox and Catholic Christians). But we also know that God's rveelation was gradual.

[kosta50]

because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13 "Chosen to salvation from the beginning..."

Yes, God has from the beginning chosen to save mankind (the world), despite Adam's sin. He did not choose some group in particular.

You are misreading St. Paul through the lens of Judaism.

[kosta50]

But if you can lose the “seed” by sinning don’t you have to start the process over again?

Be serious, please. God does not leave us; we leave God through our ungreatfulness every day. God's offer of love and salvation always stands. The Seed was given. If we toss it away we are lost; no life will come of it. If we hold on to it, pick it up again, it will give life. It all depends what kind of soil we are. And we can change. God doesn't.

[Kolokotronis]

Kosta: “The use of “recreated” is a western concept; the idea of restoriation is more in line with Orthodox doctrine what Christ came for:”

BD: No, what Christ said was “Ye must be born again” not restored. Paul says “If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, old things have passed away, all things are become new”, not restored.”

You are misunderstanding what kosta is saying, BD. The Fathers taught in accord with +Paul, that baptism is a death and resurrection through which we share Christ’s Death and Resurrection and rising out of the waters of baptism we are indeed raised into a new life as a new creation. For example:

“Are we only dying with the Master and are we only sharing in His sadness? Most of all, let me say that sharing the Master’s death is no sadness. Only wait a little and you shall see yourself sharing in His benefits. ‘For if we have died with Him,’ says St. Paul, `we believe that we shall also live together with Him.’ For in baptism there are both burial and resurrection together at the same time. He who is baptized puts off the old man, takes the new and rises up, `just as Christ has arisen through the glory of the Father.’ Do you see how, again, St. Paul calls baptism a resurrection?” +John Chrysostomos.

But then the process of theosis starts. When Kosta or I or any Orthodox person speaks of “restoration” rather than “re-creation”, we do so because the theology of The Church is that Christ’s Death and Resurrection restored to humanity the potential which Adam and Eve were created with and lost in the Fall, that potential being that they would become both the image and the likeness of God, divinized through theosis which is a process, or so we are taught by the Fathers. The “re-creation” through baptism is part of the “restoration” of that potential.

[NYer]

Yes, I saw the tape. There was absolutely no mistaking these people for who and what they were. They were open and obvious that their intention was to disgrace the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed all of of Christianity.

It is my understanding that the bishop began to bless them, then one of the 'sisters' said something to him, after which he then administered communion. Is this true?

[kosta50]

So, since we see all scripture as equally true, we look to the weight of all other scriptural evidence to make decisions about individual passages

All scripture is equally true—I would add in its message—as much as was revealed at the time. The full revelation was gradual, and Gospels shed the light that made full understanding possible.

[face to face] means "as a man speaks with his friend

No, friendship is not in this. We are not friends with God. We are His slaves, remember? His tools. Is your hammer or cordless drill your friend? Do you talk to them "face to face?"

Face-to-face means directly, looking at the other's eyes. It's a direct, even confrontational. But the one thing that is always present in this phrase is that we see the other's face.

The issue was also of seeing God and not living or living. When God appeared as a burning bush did Moses stare at it? It was still God. Did people die when they looked at Jesus' face? Did they not look at the face of God?

There is an awful lot of rationalization involved to make the biblical verses explain themselves, to make them "fit." But, then tha's what the lawyer's are for, right? :)

They were hyper-legalistic with their interpretation of the OT, and Jesus told them (in part) to relax and have some common sense

That's what the Orthodox are telling their Reformed friends too. :)

He is above us all, and no one can comprehend Him close to fully

I have been told by many on this Forum that have the mind of Christ. I owuld imagine that comprehension comes with it. So, then what you are saying is tha we have the mind of nChrist, but not fully. Partially. Ten percent? Thirty? Eight nine?

Did the Jews have the mind of Christ? Did they have 10% of it? Do they now have more? ow much (percet-wise) does one have to have the mind of Christ to comprehend God (and believe correctly, and interpret the scripture correctly) to be saved?

How can you say that we must take everything literally in the Gospels?

I wasn't speaking of parables, FK. There is a lot more to the Gospels than the parables. When He said (paraphrasing) "Don't go to the Gentiles but preach only to the twelve tribes of Israel" that is taken literally. When He said "this is My Body" or when He said "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy" all of this is literal.

[D-fendr]

Well there’s your original men of your Magisterium.

[D-fendr]

Well there’s your original men of your Magisterium.

Thanks for the reference, that’s interesting history. Found a bit on wiki also, that includes:

The Assembly consisted of 30 laymen (10 lords and 20 commoners) and 121 divines or clergymen. The clergy were selected to represent four separate groups:

The episcopalians (who supported an episcopacy) included such figures as James Ussher, bishop of Armagh. The episcopalian group usually did not attend the sessions, because the king had not authorized them.

The presbyterians (who supported an assembly-based structure found in Puritanism), the largest group, included figures such as Edward Reynolds, George Gillespie and Samuel Rutherford.

A small group of Independents (of the various Congregationalist views) were present and had the support of Oliver Cromwell, and these included Thomas Goodwin.

The Erastian representatives, such as John Lightfoot, who favored the state’s primacy over the ecclesiastical law.