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.

“Gee, it couldn’t have been your comments of the God of the Bible being a “monster”, saying I worship a “monster”, for God’s Wrath against sin being satisfied by the Blood of His Own Son as payment for our sins. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it couldn’t be anything like that, now could it?”

Shouldn’t be. The theology of The Church is quite clear,

The theology of YOUR church is quite clear, and it is equally clear that it is in direct conflict with the teaching of Christ, the OT and Apostolic teaching of the NT.

MLG, as is the error of the West in worshiping a blood thirsty monster. Unless of course I’ve got it wrong and the West really doesn’t believe that Christ’s bloody sacrifice was meant to propitiate a wrathful and blood lusting god. Tell me I got it wrong, MLG. :)

Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.

Your slight of hand by using emotionally charged rhetoric, such as "a bloodthirsty monster" and "bllod lusting god" only serves to further demonstrate your avoidance of every passage cited to you of the Blood Sacrifice being neccessary for the remission of sin.

Take the blood out of the Atonement and you have no Atonement and no remission of sin.

The Holy Spirit is [is the supreme Interpreter of the Sriptures], of course. Your side just doesn't believe that the Holy Spirit would give us the time of day

You know not what you are talking about. Read only the text of the Divine Liturgy once and then dare to repeat this nonsense.

But what is really a nonsense is that every Protestant claims the "indwelling spirit" and believes something completely private and inadvertantly different from others! Thus Osteen would surely say that what he teaches about hell is from the Holy Spirit as much as you would disagree with him claiming the same Holy Spirit as the interpreter.

Protestantism is unbiblical private interpretation of the sicrptures. The New Testament prohibits it. It is an amateur adventure, FK. It promotes relativism. Relativism denies absolute truth. It's a wide road to finding the narrow path. Good luck.

***Unless of course I’ve got it wrong and the West really doesn’t believe that Christ’s bloody sacrifice was meant to propitiate a wrathful and blood lusting god.***

Well, two things. Christ’s blood was spilt to be a sacrifice for the sins of all those who God chose from the beginning of the world. Sin requires a perfect sacrifice to remove the stain of sin. The fact that man is sinful means that he cannot be that perfect sacrifice. As for God being wrathful and blood lusting, sin requires a sacrifice. Look at Adam and Eve, animals died to cover their sins. God’s justice requires a blood sacrifice. Can you tell God that this is wrong? I can’t. It is his requirement.

The other thing... Please do not denigrate our beliefs and our God by using a small “g”. I wouldn’t do it to you.

“Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.”

No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures. The Church defined what was and was not scripture. It was able to do that through the HS by Whom The Church understands scripture. As I said before, the sacrifice was propitiary, at least in form, and there is absolutely no question but that Christ had to die.

Now honestly, do you think my words were overcharged, MLG? The god you worship does demand innocent blood does it not? It does create human beings which are damned from the moment of creation, does it not? It hates sinners and kills them does it not? It sends sinners to hell for eternal torment, even though they were created for that end, does it not? Tell me MLG, how does one describe such a “Dagon” in polite terms?

Many early Church Fathers certainly believed in purgatory, as seen in these writings...

You are missing the point. Theologoumenna are theological hypotheses expressed by individual fathers. They were not of themselves Church "doctrine." Concensus patrum or Ecumenical Council was required. St. Gregory of Nyssa, a student of Origen, for instance also taught for a while universal salvation of all souls, a serious Gnostic error, before he recanted of Origen's influence.

The Church as a whole did not teach or know anything called "Purgatory" in the first millennium, nor were there heresies that would have necessitated an eccelsial response to such errors.

The Church always believed that the souls of the departed are in an intermediate state followoing physical death and particular judgment immediately following), and always prayed for the departed souls to ease their discomfort.

The souls of the saved experience discomfort through shame as their unrepented sins are revealed in full and as they stand "naked" before God and all the saints. The period from particular to Final Judgment is a period of purification, through prayers, commemorative services, fasting, etc. not by being roasted to God's "satifaction." The fires they feel are not real fires, but God's love which burns all sinners confornted with Truth.

***Now honestly, do you think my words were overcharged, MLG? The god you worship does demand innocent blood does it not? It does create human beings which are damned from the moment of creation, does it not? It hates sinners and kills them does it not? It sends sinners to hell for eternal torment, even though they were created for that end, does it not? Tell me MLG, how does one describe such a “Dagon” in polite terms?***

I would say yes to all your questions. Yes, God does demand innocent blood. Yes, God hates sinners and kills them. Yes, God sends sinners to eternal hell, even though they were created SPECIFICALLY for that end. How do I describe Him? Majestic, awesome, supreme, Holy, perfect, righteous, loving , gracious, merciful, kind, Lord.
PS. It’s God to you. Not god.

“Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.”

No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures.

Of course you have, you reject every bit of Scripture that teaches the Blood Atonement of Christ to pay the penalty of death owed by the Elect for sin.

Hello GoLightly,

To answer your question, I do, however, it is so far off topic after reading this entire thread that I’m exhausted and have no desire to stir the pot.

Google: “The Scriptural Doctrine Concerning Hell”, By Thomas B. Thayer, (1862), for the gist of my essay on languages and translations. I am, by-the-way, not a practitioner of Universalism, but simply a longtime student of Church history and all Christian beliefs and in my own heart and publically, a believer in the Saviour, (which is, I believe the only prerequisite to salvation and eternal life). Doctrinal arguments like these loose sight of the true promise of God’s yet to be bestowed Covenant with Abraham.

“Then my assessment is correct, you and the EO reject the clear teaching of the OT, Christ and the Apostolic teaching of the NT on the propitiatory nature of the Atonement.”
No, MLG, your assessment is wrong. Orthodoxy has never rejected the teachings of the scriptures.

Of course you have, you reject every bit of Scripture that teaches the Blood Atonement of Christ to pay the penalty of death owed by the Elect for sin.

It is noted that in every example, he has completely avoided those passages as if they do not exist, and just as the Roman Catholic does, points to "tradition", when confronted with the clear teaching of Christ and Apostolic teaching in the Scriptures, a "tradition" that is contrary to the Scriptures, even going so far as to blaspheme God as a "blood lusting god".

Please pray for the EOs.

Oh, so the OT Scriptures are "Jewish mythology".

In part yes. There is no evidence of any mass Exodus from Egypt, or that Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. The son of Ramses II, whose army was drowned by the fleeing Hebrews, conquered Caanan and found Israelites living peacefully next door to them (and decided to defeat them too -- but he never took any revenge on the people who allegedly humiliated his father as the Jewish mythology would have us believe).

We also know today that Kind David's vast empire was but a coupel of small villages. Mythology was very much part of the old biblical world, MLG.

Now, I am speaking about this privately. I am sure the Curch would disagree with me. Nonetheless, the facts simply don't match. The Bible is froth with many mythological stories and events and apparitions. Not everything in the OT is God's message fully revealed by Christ. The Bible is after all a Holy Spirit inspired work of many authors (some pretending to be one) but written in human language and human cultural surroundings. It is inspired by written by human hands and human minds and perceptions. In addition to that, it has been corrupted by various copies and translations. Do you claim the translations and the translators to be inspired as well? The KJV authors admit they were not and admitted to their own mistakes, numbering a few hundred. If the Bible is inerrant than the Bible is God. Do you worship the Bible?

“Of course you have, you reject every bit of Scripture that teaches the Blood Atonement of Christ to pay the penalty of death owed by the Elect for sin.”

You’ve really got to tell me why you think Orthodoxy rejects the teaching that Christ died on the Cross, suffered the penalty of sin which is death, in a very bloody manner, on account of our sins? MLG, The Church understands what it determined you would read for scripture, honest, it does. So why don’t you tell me what we reject. Oh and while you’re at it, do you really believe that Eve and Satan had sex which resulted in Cain? That’s one I admit I had never heard before.

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.