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.

[irishtenor]

I love it! Every passage is scripturally proved.

[irishtenor]

I would say yes. What would you say?

[irishtenor]

I would say yes. What would you say?

[irishtenor]

The dreaded double post... AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH.

[BlueNgold]

May I suggest you do a study of the New Testament looking for commentary on that specific point. In short, it says that there is nothing in scripture that is given to only any one man. The Truth has been revealed.

Any one who tells you that they, and only they, have the answer, and that you must seek the truth through that one man, is speaking directly against scripture.

Yes - we all should believe one and the same thing. And it is my opinion that the things that we argue about most are the things that fall outside of the core Truth. The things we tend to argue about are not the things that define Christianity because they are not the things that define salvation. If at the core of the matter we agree, then all else comes down to how you choose to fellowship.

[OLD REGGIE]

But the tradition of standing for what is believed to be the word of God (i.e. the Torah) in Judaism was carried to standing when the Gospels are read, because they represent the direct witnessed and living words of God, not revelations made in somone's dreams or in a trans.

Luke 1: (Mary, Angel, Vision) ??? Is this story suspect in your mind?

Acts 9: (Paul) ??? Is this story suspect in your mind?

Acts 10: (Peter) ??? Is this story suspect in your mind?

Revelation ???? Entirely suspect in your mind?

The above is but a small sampling of God's word being transmitted thru Trance, Dream, Angels, etc. Is it all suspect in your mind?

But when +Paul was preaching the Gospels were not written and, remember, +Paul had minimal contact with the Apostles and much of his teaching does not reflect what's in the Gospels but rather represents curious blend of Judaism and +Paul's own take on things (as he himself admits on occasion).

You appear close to claiming it was a mistake to Canonize the writings of Paul.

I am somewhat in agreement with you concerning the preaching/teaching of Paul. I am struck by the I,I,I's in his writing. Further, I am of the belief that the misogynistic attitude toward women in the Orthodox/Catholic Church stems directly from Paul.

Show me where the dogma of the Holy Trinity is obvious and well defined in scriptures.

Careful! You are in danger of drifting into my (Unitarian) camp. :)

[BlueNgold]

The papacy declared itself infallible.

I do not follow a ‘denomination’, period.

But, in order to follow my own advice, I am going to remove myself from this discussion. Instead of discussing the Grace of God, the Diety of Christ, the Amazing Gift that is Salvation - instead of seeking the Lost and spreading the Word - we are discussing the things of man and the rules of the flesh.

God Bless and Good Luck, my friend.

[OLD REGGIE]

Now, based on this if what Paul preached was not exactly in line with what Christ told him, then we know that Paul is a complete liar and we should believe none of what he says. I am more than comfortable that Paul was exactly in line with Christ, but I know many people are not so sure. Paul goes all or nothing in this passage, so we have to choose what to believe.

I agree Paul was careful to distinguish when he was speaking for Paul and when he was teaching the Lord's word. Unfortunately I believe there are many who fail to distinguish when Paul was preaching the Gospel and when he was preaching the big I.

In my opinion Paul's disregard for women is taken as Gospel by the Catholic/Orthodox Churches despite the fact it is Paul speaking for Paul and not for the Lord.

[OLD REGGIE]

I admit I am getting old and forgetful. I meant to include some Scripture which I believe Paul is making a careful distinction between Scripture and the big I.

1 Corinthians 7:
1] Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
[3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
[4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
[6] I say this by way of concession, not of command.
[7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
[12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
[13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy.
[15] But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
[16] Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
[17] Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
[18] Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
[19] For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
[20] Every one should remain in the state in which he was called.
[21] Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
[22] For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.
[23] You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
[24] So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.
[25] Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

Paul being Paul.

[OLD REGGIE]

Huh, and pray tell how like" or "unlike" must such a faith be for you to pray together? And who determines the limits of such "likeness" or "unlikeness?" You? Your pastor? Your church? Fox News? If Protestant denominations are not "essentially" different enough not to pray together, then why have them? Why do they exist? Does it matter wat people believe and preach?

I recognize you may not jump to the defense of Pope Benedict but you may have an opinion of his praying with a Muslim Cleric.

Any significant difference between Catholicism and Islam?

Pope prays with cleric at Turkey mosque

[OLD REGGIE]

It seems Missey_Lucy_Goosey has been banned but I will post her question one more time:

":::When are you going to provide dogmatic teaching from the early church fathers on the dogmas of the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Misconception, Roman papal primacy and Roman papal infallibility from the first 4 centuries of the church?

What makes the first four centuries special as opposed to anything that happened thereafter?

Of course you can't find early Church Teaching because it doesn't exist. In some instances for nearly 2,000 years.

No Scripture? OK ignore that.

Early Church Fathers? Weeell not realy "early" but if you hunt enough you can find some magic words.

The Magisterium. That's it! These doctrines were revealed in the beginning but only recently understood.

See! MAGIC!

[OLD REGGIE]

We are forbidden to privately interpret the Bible. The Bible itself says so.

Where? Please note this does not include prophecy of Scripture.

It says that the Church is the pillar of Truth, not Scripture.

It might be a good idea for you to gather up all the Bibles in the hands of private citizens and burn them again.

When Jesus says "it is written" He is speaking of Scripture, not men.

[kosta50]

I recognize you may not jump to the defense of Pope Benedict but you may have an opinion of his praying with a Muslim Cleric

I know the Pope did not pray with the Muslim Cleric. He was praying to God to open their eyes and bring them to Christ. I am quite sure of that.

I hope he wasn't praying in a German synagogue, except for the salvation of the Jews. Rabbinical Judaism cursed Jesus of Nazareth in Jamnia (90 AD) and called on all the Jews to do the same. I doubt that any true Christian would pray with Christ-cursing Jews, except for their salvation, so that they too may come to Christ.

[kosta50]

Where? Please note this does not include prophecy of Scripture

Try deuterocanonicals, such as I Peter.

When Jesus says "it is written" He is speaking of Scripture, not men

Actually, He is speaking of the Old Testament (Tanakh). With all your distrust and mockery of the early church fathers, you accept their canon. Strange how so many "BIbl-e-believing" Protestants forget that.

[OLD REGGIE]

I know the Pope did not pray with the Muslim Cleric. He was praying to God to open their eyes and bring them to Christ. I am quite sure of that.

You are sure? He prayed in silence yet you are sure of his prayer. Wow!

From my link:

"At the mosque, the pope removed his shoes and put on white slippers. Then he walked beside Mustafa Cagrici, the head cleric of Istanbul. Facing the holy city of Mecca -- in the tradition of Islamic worship -- Cagrici said: "Now I'm going to pray." Benedict, too, bowed his head and his lips moved as if reciting words.

Before the pope left, he thanked Cagrici "for this moment of prayer."..."

I hope he wasn't praying in a German synagogue, except for the salvation of the Jews. Rabbinical Judaism cursed Jesus of Nazareth in Jamnia (90 AD) and called on all the Jews to do the same. I doubt that any true Christian would pray with Christ-cursing Jews, except for their salvation, so that they too may come to Christ.

Are you the person who claimed the other day that his words were not said in hate?

I repeat: Pure, unadulterated hate!

[kosta50]

In my opinion Paul's disregard for women is taken as Gospel by the Catholic/Orthodox Churches

St. Paul did not have disregard for women. His attitude towards women was the attitude of 1st century Middle Eastern societies towards women. Woman was a property (some backwoods rednecks stll treat women as property even in 21st century America!), a trophy, a prize.

Christianity introduced no-divorce clause, which was a novelty to all. Do you realize how many people are going to hell for committing adultery with divorced women? Not to speak of those still formally married. Or how many divorced or formally married women are going to hell for not checking into monasteries?

I just came from a remote part of Virginia where all the locals are working on their 3rd marriage and every couple seems to have half a dozen children from all of them. If you think jails are overcrowded, wait until Hell opens its doors...I don't buy into any of this, I hope you realize that. Something's terrbily amiss here.

[OLD REGGIE]

Try deuterocanonicals, such as I Peter.

The passage I cited concerning "prophecy of Scripture" is:

2 Peter 1:
[20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Actually, He is speaking of the Old Testament (Tanakh). With all your distrust and mockery of the early church fathers, you accept their canon. Strange how so many "BIbl-e-believing" Protestants forget that.

I am well aware of the Scripture" Jesus spoke of. I don't need you to tell me.

You are expert at running off at the mouth, please be expert enough to show where I mocked or showed distrust of the Early Church Fathers.

Forget for the moment that I am not a Protestant and remember the Canon was set before the Church was thoroughly corrupted in it's reach for power and wealth.

Also show Scripture which supports your claim " "We are forbidden to privately interpret the Bible. The Bible itself says so.

[kosta50]

You are sure? He prayed in silence yet you are sure of his prayer. Wow!

Yes I am. I am quite certain he did not pray to the Muslim moon "god." He prayed, as all Christians should in such situations, for God to open their eyes. That's not praying "with" Muslims. That's praying for Muslims.

I repeat: Pure, unadulterated hate!

Christ-cursing is pure, unadulterated hate, I agree!

[OLD REGGIE]

St. Paul did not have disregard for women. His attitude towards women was the attitude of 1st century Middle Eastern societies towards women. Woman was a property..."

The same attitude you (Orthodox/Catholic) still have toward women.

Contrast this to Jesus's attitude toward women.

[irishtenor]

***Also show Scripture which supports your claim “ “We are forbidden to privately interpret the Bible. The Bible itself says so.***

If he did that, he would be privately interpreting scripture.