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.

Surely when you were in school, so very long ago, Father, Son and Holy Spirit = 3.

Are you certain you dont mean "=1"?

Well those last words are from the final statement of the 7th Ecumenical Council, but I suspect that won’t impress you.

Not really. Called by Empress Irene. What was her position in the Church? In any event you'd have difficulty in stretching approximately 1,200 years into "always" and/or nearly 2,000 years.

"...I doubt we have any religious common ground at all."

Perhaps you'd be better off limiting yourself to caucus threads. It is apparent you are unable to defend your positions with those willing to question your "authority".

So why do you insist that this new creation can do nothing good, even with God's graces moving his will to please God? How are we still worthless?

We can do nothing good OF OUR OWN.

Phil 2:13 : ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

God is responsible for both the willing and the acting, so it is not a cooperative effort. I said we have a new ability to "do good" since the above verse does not take effect until we have been given a new heart. This is when works become good in God's eyes. I admit that the way I put it probably seemed to clash with what Harley has been saying recently, but he and I are on the same page.

We still sin, but that doesn't mean I am a "sinner" in biblical terms. A "sinner" is someone whose life is not in keeping with the Commandments. A person walking in faith is not a "sinner", although he may sin. The big difference is that this occasional sin will be repented of. A "sinner" does not repent of sin.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure the Bible supports it. For example:

Luke 18:13-14 : 13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner .' 14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

The tax collector could not have made his plea without already having been regenerated, yet he still calls himself a sinner, and is indeed praised by Jesus for saying so.

FK: "The person goes from a 0% chance of salvation to a 100% chance."

I wouldn't go that far. We cannot measure our "chance" of salvation in that way (I presume you mean "eternal glory"). It is statements like that which seem to differ with what Frumanchu said and you agreed with earlier. They are conflicting comments and are, quite frankly, confusing. What DO you believe?

I think I've seen everything Fru has said on this thread and I can't think of any disagreements I have. My comment above refers to Divine fact, as it applies to a generic person. Jesus either loses SOME of those the Father gives Him, or He loses NONE of them. That's the 100%. Fru and I have both said that we do not claim Divine knowledge as to our own salvations, but that doesn't affect the fact of our salvations one way or the other. Our assurance is what is humanly possible.

So when you say "we" can do good, that means that man can do righteous acts while under the indwelling of the Spirit and they are counted as his acts in Christ?

I was focusing more on the first part of your statement here, which I agree with. I was thinking of the before/after of salvation and when works become good in God's eyes. But as I alluded to earlier, the acts still belong to God since He both willed them and moved us to do them. I'm sorry if I sent you mixed signals on this. :)

Then I’m confused. You are nonTrinitarian, yes? Are you differentiating between “divine” and “God”?

Yes. That is an accepted definition.

Matthew 17:5
He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."

Acts 13:33
this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'

Jesus declares His Divinity.

John 14
[1] "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.
[2] In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
[3] And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
[4] And you know the way where I am going."
[5] Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"
[6] Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
[7] If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him."
[8] Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied."
[9] Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?
[10] Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
[11] Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.

Do you suppose Jesus is claiming "they" are Divine?

John 17:
[11] And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

[22] The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

Mama mia! I can't believe this thread is still running.

The first two are accounted for in the Protoevangelium of James which is early 2nd century.

Back in 2005, someone posted it to the FR Religion Forum. Sometimes it's fun to resurrect old threads. Here it is:

The Protoevangelium of James

NYer hears the words of the consecration in the very language Christ spoke them in at Maronite Liturgies.

There are at least 3 Eastern Catholic Churches that retain Aramaic for the Words of Institution. Here is the transliterated text for the Consecration of the Bread. To hear the priest chant this each week, is like being at the Last Supper.

Aramaic Consecration

Byow mo how daq dom ha sho dee leh
ma' bed hy eh
nsa bel lah mo be dow qa dee sho to.
Ou ba rekh
ou qa desh
waq so
ou ya bel tal mee dow kad o mar:
Sab a khool meh neh kul khoon:
Ho no den ee tow faghro deel
day lo fy koun wah lof sagee hey
meh teq seh ou meh tee heb
lhoo so yo dhow beh was ha yeh dal 'o lam
'ol meen.

English Translation

On the day before his life-giving passion,
Jesus took bread in his holy hands.
He blessed,
sanctified,
broke,
and gave it to his disciples, saying:
Take and eat it, all of you:
This is my body
which is broken and delivered for you
and for many,
for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

I must tell you, however, that the guarantee to me that The Church has it right on Perpetual Virginity, The Assumption and the Trinity is quite frankly the uninterrupted witness of my own family for at least 1800 years. From generation to generation we have believed the same things as they have been passed down to us within the family and within the liturgical community of The Church where we have worshiped God in a virtually identical way for those 1800 years. Lex orandi, lex credendi, Old R. I sincerely doubt that you can understand what it is to know, thoroughly and in every fiber of the body, every single Sunday, that I am worshiping our Triune God with the “Right Praise”, in an Orthodox manner, and for all intents and purposes in the same manner and in the same words as the Liturgy was celebrated in Jerusalem and Antioch and Athens and Corinth and Rome in the years after the Resurrection. And its not just me, Old R. Kosta shares the same religious and familial experience. NYer hears the words of the consecration in the very language Christ spoke them in at Maronite Liturgies. The Latins here witness the continuing, nearly 2000 year old Roman Rite of the Divine Liturgy. That’s my assurance. I know what The Church always and everywhere has believed.

Well said. When it comes down to it, our faith is not based on proof texts and rational hair-splitting, but the fact that it has been passed down from generation to generation, our Church led by the Spirit, from the time of Christ. If it is wrong, then Christ broke His promise to be with His Church and lead it to all truth. We believe because we know who has taught us - said Paul to Timothy - and we continue with that idea. We KNOW who taught us.

Regards

I get the idea that this is exactly what you believe - that God has already ordained what we will do, ordering us to use or not use His gifts of grace.

In a indirect way that is correct but it is more. God leads, guide and direct us. He is our shepherd. He gives us the tools and equips us to go about His work-whatever that happens to be. When we stumble we learn from those lessons through Him.

I have already said that Catholics believe in imputed righteousness

Not that I doubt your word, but could you point me to where this is official doctrine of the Catholic Church? When I go out to New Advent to look up both "imputed" and "righteousness" I get a lot of blah, blah, blah. Neither of these are even listed. Instead the focus seems to be on infused justification. If I Google on "imputed righteousness" I pull up a LOT of Protestant websites but no Catholic websites.

Then how is man justified only once when the Bible says that in three instances in the NT, Abraham was DECLARED righteous? The simple solution is that man is not merely justified one time over the course of their lives.

Sure, I would agree with that conclusion as shocking as that might sound. Man needs to be justified throughout his lifetime. Righteousness is imputed ONCE; the Holy Spirit works to justify a man over his lifetime.

The difference between the Old Testament people and the New Testament people is that the OT people didn't have the Holy Spirit to help them. They were made righteous but it was an imperfect justification process. Only in a very few cases such as David, did the Holy Spirit indwell the person through their life time. They had to constantly make atonements for themselves. We now have a high priest who makes atonements for us. This is a better covenant.

And that is the sad thing, because Catholics do not believe that good works come solely from us, either.

Here is a rather good article that explains the Council of Trent's view of works. The difference is that the Council says man cannot be justified by performing the works of the Law by his own natural powers but they are still his works performed by him. Protestants believe all works are done by Christ through us.

Perhaps the idea of synergy bothers you, but THAT is not a "works salvation"

It does bother me because Catholics aren't the only ones with this misguided synergistic view. A lot of Protestants will tell you that THEY want to go out and win the world for Christ.

By itself, Reformed prayer is simply a mechanical act set according to God’s will but accomplishing nothing, right? If you cannot change God’s will, then supplication is useless, right?

After you posted this, I answered in 9954.

I believe that we had a long discourse here some time ago that prayer is not supplication and we are not actually asking God for anything - it is merely worship.

I don't remember ever saying that myself. God clearly tells us to bring our requests to Him, so supplication is certainly a part of prayer, imo. I have said that it is not the ONLY thing.

Q. 178. What is prayer? A. Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit; with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgement of his mercies.

Sounds like the Reformed are not to pray to God for help.

Why do you say that? If our desire is "help" then the Holy Spirit helps us to ask for help. All the questions you quoted are consistent. We are to ask God for help.

WCF CHAPTER 3 Of God’s Eternal Decree -- 1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:

Sounds like nothing that we do matters, since all has been ordained. Am I a little mixed up, or is the Reformed faith a tad schizophrenic?

I don't know if you're mixed up, but I do know that the Reformed faith is not schizophrenic. :) When you say nothing "matters" to us, I need to know a little more about what you mean by that. God's will being carried out within time on earth matters to God and all Christians because we all want that to happen. If nothing we do "matters" unless man has the power to thwart God's original perfect will, then I would say you are a little mixed up. :)

[Mark to Joe:] Exactly. Co- [redemptrix] as in co-pilot. I posted a dictionary entry some time ago on this very subject. It appears to have been forgotten. Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law: a : associated in an action with another : fellow b : having a usually lesser share in duty or responsibility : alternate : deputy Auxiliary, lesser, with but subordinate to. Co redemptrix. It fits logically and Scripturally.

What exactly is Mary's "association" with, or "lesser duty or responsibility" towards my personal salvation? Though I have never prayed to her once in my entire life, does Mary know all about me, my sins, and my relationship with God? Finally, how does Mary as co-redemptrix "fit" scripturally? I'm sorry that I missed your earlier explanation. The only one that I can (sort of) remember from anyone is something like that since Mary suffered it makes perfect sense that she is the co-redemptrix. Obviously, the Bible makes no such assertion.

FK: "From the mailbox, of course God will chide His children to be good and stay in the yard, but when they run out into traffic He will just smile, shake His head, and STAND PERFECTLY STILL. "

Is this what sin and God's grace and love are like to you? God is God no matter what we believe.

Well, obviously the above is my estimation of the result of the Roman Catholic faith since it would seem much more important to God that man have free will and die, than to not have free will and live in Heaven forever. I don't see that as love at all. And, I WOULD say that God is God no matter what we believe. His truth is not dependent on whether anyone believes it or not.

Kosta, if everything-that-there-is-or-can-be is known PERFECTLY, then there can be ZERO deviations from it

There is zero deviation in the outcome of God's plan: God will save some, while other (the unrepentant) will perish. Nothing will change that. We have been told that the end is coming, the Kingdom of Heven is near. We were told in the scriputre how it will end and who will be there.

What we do with respect to God affects only our destinety and does not put in jeopardy God's plan, x! God made it possible with His sacrifice on the Cross for all men to be saved. But all men will not answer His call. That exercise of free will, which God permits, is our decision and the cosnequences of that decison are something we should be ready to bear. There is no free ride. There is no guarantee unless we persevere and live in repenetance.

the above is my estimation of the result of the Roman Catholic faith

Which is wrong. Sin, God's grace and love are no different from what you experience. If God is not "perfectly still" for you, why would you assume the Catholic experience is different?

Maybe because you separate 'subjective' free will from actual free will? And because you believe that God is different for the elect and reprobate?

God's grace and love and the pain of sin are the same for all humans. This is our theology. God does not hide or change dependent on the individual.This is our theology.

You can experience this the same as everyone else. It's only if you don't trust this - if you think it's subjective, illusionary, "percieved free will" as I believe you put it, then you can start believing that God depends on your theology.

And you can get lost in it, separating what you truly experience from how your theology says it actually is "from God's POV".

You can start living your experience distantly, on the layer of your theology. And the experience of God becomes more distant, removed, foreign, to you.

Like cooking from a recipe in a foreign language.

IMHO. FWIW.

Not that I doubt your word, but could you point me to where this is official doctrine of the Catholic Church?

I think the Council of Trent on Justification commented that justification is more than an imputation - not disagreeing that it was not, but that it was not limited to an external change only. Clearly, the Scriptures tell us that man's nature changes when the Spirit enters and indwells the believer. Anthropology must then change.

Righteousness is imputed ONCE;

Do you think Paul thought that Abraham was once and only once declared righteous?

The difference is that the Council says man cannot be justified by performing the works of the Law by his own natural powers but they are still his works performed by him. Protestants believe all works are done by Christ through us.

Works performed without Christ have absolutely no supernatural merit. Only after the Spirit abides in us can our works be meritorious, and ONLY because of the Spirit's presence. Now, if all works are actually done by Christ through us, what role do we play? Remember, we are of a new nature. Do not apply the old man and his limitations to the new nature and what it can now do, quickened by the Spirit.

It does bother me because Catholics aren't the only ones with this misguided synergistic view. A lot of Protestants will tell you that THEY want to go out and win the world for Christ.

First, the Greek word for synergy is in the Scriptures. God is man's helper, and clearly, the Bible shows that God and man work together. Not as if they are two persons pulling the plow together, so that if one does something, the other does less. But man clearly is responsible for something, otherwise, he wouldn't be judged. Judgment implies that a person has a free choice and is able to do good or bad.

When Catholics or Protestants talk about going out to the world and win people for God, they certainly are not saying that they do it WITHOUT God. That is just the way we speak. Jesus' last words to the Apostles say the same thing in Matthew - "[you] go out to the world and teach what I have taught..." It certainly does not mean that God will be watching with no interest or participation.

Regards

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.