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.

I have only caught bits and pieces of this conversation, but I don't know of any Gnostic view of Calvin unless you wish to consider the Bible Gnostic. The Catholic Church, by your definition is steeped in "... a sort of esoteric pseudo-knowledge or mysticism derived from personal, direct spiritual experiences which they took to be Divine revelation." and you applaud it???? It's rather silly to be saying Calvinists are Gnostic when, in fact based upon your own definition, the Catholic Church illustrates gnostic tendencies and Zoroastrianism beliefs. And all you say is "Ho, hum."? Talk about weird conversations.

The problem you have is how can you determine that a person actually received "spiritual insight and revelation directly from the Holy Spirit"? While I think Calvin was a smart dude, I still like to check what he had to say against the scripture. You know the "trust but verify" bit.

Catholics don't have that luxury. Anything the Church says, goes. So, if the Church says the Virgin Mary *POPPED* in on three kids in a Spainish field, then you are compelled to say, "Haaaallelujah!!! Pass the taco sauce." The Catholic Church is literally littered with fake Saints that never were much of a Saint to begin with (St. Patrick or St. Francis comes to mind but there are many others) or out-and-out frauds. There is historical evidence to support this but, hey, since the Church is infallible and the Church can't be wrong then let's not mention this. Now you've added 400+ new saints to the queue to whom you can pray to who were martyred for their beliefs that people can pray to and receive divine intervention. Talk about Gnosticism. Pretty soon our Lord Jesus will be looking for a new spot.

Let's see; praying to dead people and having dead people talk to you. Not a very good theological position I would want to take.

Thanks for your reply.

Maybe I am an "Old Christian", one who existed prior to the time the "organization" forced belief in the Trinity as a requirement for Christianity.

I understand. But the Trinity is still foundational to almost all Protestant and Catholic Christians. I'm just pointing out that your theology is at variance with the foundations of both.

Maybe that's why I am a Biblical Unitarian. I do not insist it is necessary for each person to interpret Scripture exactly the same as I do.

Then I don't get your beef.

You see, in my naivete I believe God has made room for all of us.

Then I really don't get your beef.

Either you're accepting of all interpretations and Christians or you're not. That's what I can't understand. Are you arguing against those who don't accept your view that there should be no set of beliefs? Is that the primary beef? Against any required theology?

The Reformed believers with the indwelling Holy Spirit can fade away and will always be called back before he dies. A nice and satisfying doctrine, if you are one of the elect.

The intrinsic view of Imputed Righteousness results in forgiveness our sins, past, present and future.

The Holy Spirit never 'fades away' He permanently indwells the believer, since the body of the Believer is now a temple.(1Cor.6)

The believer can lose the filling (relationship) of the Holy Spirit by rejecting him and sinning thus, either quenching or grieving Him.(1Thess 5, Eph.4)

Holiness is not sinless perfection, but completeness and maturity, since no man living can ever be without sin (1Jn.1:10)

What does occur is the creation of a second nature, thus, the believer has two natures (Rom.6-7).

Water baptism has nothing to do salvation, it is a symbol of it (Col.2) and Jn.3 is making an issue of being born again, the first birth natural, occurs with water, the second, supernatural, occurs with the Holy Spirit.

It would be the RCC view of Righteousness that would have the individual's righteousness 'fading' if he did not partake of the Sacraments.

Good point.

The thing is, though, that in verse 38, Mary says:

Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her.

My reading of this is that, while Gabriel laid some pressure on her, she accepted. Gabriel didn’t leave until she had agreed to the task and the role assigned to her. Now if she had declined, what would have happened? Hmmm.

I regretfully (smile) disagree.

Luke 1:26 God sent Gabriel. GOD SENT! Gabriel was but the messenger.

Luke 1:31 God sent Gabriel to Mary to tell her she would conceive. You will conceive...

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her.

"I am the handmaid of the Lord....."

A handmaid is a servant. She had no choice since she was chosen by God. This is her honor. This is the sign of her blessedness. But, her permission was not required, it was preordained.

I thought you might respond as you did, FK.

I guess I feel if I'm doing it right, I SHOULD be predictable. :)

FK: "One example [of sin corrupting creation] would be the physical deterioration of our bodies. I don't think that would have happened, but for sin."

That may well be true. Mightn't it not also be true that physical death, while a "natural" result of sin, is allowed to occur as a benefice from God so that we need not exist in sin for an eternity in the flesh?

In all honesty I've never thought about that. But I wouldn't think it was also true. Were I a reprobate existing in sin and I had the option of spending eternity sinning in the flesh versus rotting in the flaming pit of hell, I believe I would choose the former. :)

However, if you refer to the Godly living in a sinful world, even our own remnant of sin, then I fully agree with seeing physical death as a benefit to those who are saved. We will be better off. This is one reason why I think that God directly causes physical death. For the saved, if we cause the time of our death, then it is always bad because it violates the Law. But if God chooses the time, then it is always a blessing.

In other words, is death an example of God's love? Certainly it was before the Incarnation. What about since?

I certainly think it CAN be, especially in a case where God ends a life in order to prevent an elect from sinning his way out of his salvation. I do note that +Basil seems to acknowledge that God does cause the deaths of individuals.

Really? Might it not be better to say that these "evils" [natural disasters] are imposed on us by the Evil One but allowed by God as "pedagogical punishments"? In this sense, sin distorts all of creation which was created perfect.

Even of the first level, I don't think "natural disasters" are always evil at all. Sometimes they redirect rivers and more people have water, etc. Plus, the Bible is so very clear that they are the work of God. How could this be considered an evil from satan:

Matt 27:51-52 : 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

There is also the example of the parting of the Red Sea. I doubt that it was satan who worked so hard to save God's people while wiping out Pharaoh's army, who served him. :)

[+Basil:] Therefore, He does not slay one, and give life to another, but through the means which He slays, He gives life to a man, and He heals a man with that which He smites him, according to the proverb which says, 'For thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from death' (Prov. 23:14).

Is he saying that all the unrighteous who were put to death were somehow saved? Are the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah now in Heaven? If so, then what would +Basil's answer be to this:

Jude 7 : In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

They are serving the punishment of eternal fire.

The Desert Fathers have left us countless stories of holy monastics around whom, by virtue of their advanced theosis, nature returned to a perfect and peaceful state, where the lion lays down with the lamb so to speak. many of these stories are told to Orthodox children to this very day.

Thanks for the quote from +Ryle. In these stories, is the hero the one who achieved advanced theosis? That is to say, what role does God play in these stories? I ask because it seems like it is the monastic who is able to alter nature through his decision to achieve advanced theosis. But regardless of the answer, off of the top of my head I can't think of any similar stories that I have ever heard. Sounds interesting though.

I understand. But the Trinity is still foundational to almost all Protestant and Catholic Christians. I'm just pointing out that your theology is at variance with the foundations of both.

"Foundational"???? Was the foundation of both the Protestants and Catholics set in 325 AD? You guys are the new guys.

Then I don't get your beef.

Then I really don't get your beef.

I have no beef with the various interpretations of Scripture.

Don't waste your time trying to psychoanalyze me. I am tired with this line of questioning. Just accept that I am a mystery to you.

“In these stories, is the hero the one who achieved advanced theosis? That is to say, what role does God play in these stories? I ask because it seems like it is the monastic who is able to alter nature through his decision to achieve advanced theosis”

It is the very existence of these monastics which is able to restore creation around them to its true created nature, FK. The Fathers tell us why. It is because by attaining a state of theosis, we become like God. But none of that happens without God’s grace, FK. That’s God’s “role” in the stories.

“’Can a man take fire into his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?’ (Prov. 6:27) says the wise Solomon. And I say: can he, who has in his heart the Divine fire of the Holy Spirit burning naked, not be set on fire, not shine and glitter and not take on the radiance of the Deity in the degree of his purification and penetration by fire? For penetration by fire follows upon purification of the heart, and again purification of the heart follows upon penetration by fire, that is, inasmuch as the heart is purified, so it receives Divine grace, and again inasmuch as it receives grace, so it is purified. When this is completed (that is, purification of heart and acquisition of grace have attained their fullness and perfection), through grace a man becomes wholly a god.” +Symeon the New Theologian

and

“The Son of God has become Son of Man in order to make us...sons of God, raising our race by grace to what He is Himself by nature, granting us birth from above through the grace of the Holy Spirit and leading us straightway to the kingdom of heaven, or rather, granting us this kingdom within us (Luke 17:21), in order that we should not merely be fed by the hope of entering it, but entering into full possession thereof should cry: our ‘life is hid with Christ in God.’ (Col. 3:3).” +Symeon the New Theologian

and

“Moses and David, and whoever else became vessels of divine energy by laying aside the properties of their fallen nature, were inspired by the power of God... They became living ions of Christ, being the same as He is, by grace rather than by assimilation....” +Gregory Palamas

(you knew I had to get those two into this discussion!)

As “gods”, as “Sons of God” as “Icons of Christ”, all through God’s grace rather than assimilation into His Essence, the Christian who has attained theosis does indeed restore creation. That’s one of the purposes of the Incarnation, FK.

The Holy Spirit never 'fades away' He permanently indwells the believer, since the body of the Believer is now a temple.(1Cor.6)

Where does the Bible say that the Spirit PERMANENTLY INDWELLS in someone from the very beginning of their acceptance of the Lord to their death on this earth and that He will NOT EVER leave? Paul writes to those who "have the Spirit permanently indwelling" to be careful with their dissensions, because THEY are destroying the Temple...

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God shall destroy that one; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are. 1 Cor 3:16-17

Is God the Father going to destroy someone with the Spirit abiding in them?

It seems that the Spirit's indwelling is partly conditional. It appears that GOD has the perogative to destroy those who defile the Temple (the Church, in this context, those who break it apart).

It would be the RCC view of Righteousness that would have the individual's righteousness 'fading' if he did not partake of the Sacraments.

And the Scriptures, as well. We first receive our righteousness at Baptism, as Paul writes in Romans 6. The Eucharist is "our daily bread", necessary for eternal life, according to Jesus Himself. The sacraments are visible instruments that manifest our relationship with Christ.

Regards

FK responded: We can do nothing good OF OUR OWN.

It is replies like this that convince me that you are not listening and continuing conversation is futile. Read it more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.

I think I've been listening, and I wasn't jumping to conclusions about you, I was only referring to me and explaining my answer. I wasn't saying, "as opposed to you". My understanding of your position now is that there must be a cooperation between man and God. Each does (H)his own part, but even in the human part you rely on God. I think you'd say that in your own cooperation it is God who is behind it or a part of it. So, to make up numbers, even if you split your "half" with God, that still leaves a "quarter" of the credit going to the man. I'm just trying to come up with a way to express this since I know we disagree on "something" here. :)

IOW, there is some "thing" that you do to make it cooperation instead of God doing it all. Whatever that "thing" is, and who is responsible for it, is what we disagree upon. Perhaps we just disagree on God's management style, hands on versus a delegator. Would you agree to that? :)

I'm afraid the answer is "yes". With all due respect, this is my assessment of Jesus' priorities under the Roman Catholic faith. Jesus either has the power to save unilaterally, or He does notIf He does have that power, but chooses not to use it in favor of allowing man to choose whether to save himself by cooperating, then my supposition is accurate. That is, that it is more important to Jesus to let His beloved children die than for Him to do what any loving human parent would do, save the child's life in spite of the child's "suicidal" wishes.

First,how can they be "beloved" if they were created for hell?There is no love in hell.Thus to create something for that purpose is hate to begin with!

Dear Brother, here is a question for you.

If two men have the exact same sins at death...Do you think that Jesus could possibly save one, and send the other to hell?

Why would He do this?Just because he has power?

Do you think "power" is greater or equal to Love?

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.