Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)
Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: apostolic; catholic; fascinatedwcatholics; givemerome; obsessionwithrome; papistsrule; pope; protestant; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,921-3,9403,941-3,9603,961-3,980 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: blue-duncan
Sincerely ask the Lord with your free will to send you sufferings for the soul of another person.

Then you will understand True love and free will,Dear Brother

3,941 posted on 08/23/2007 7:54:20 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3923 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

Supposing that you had a mental block?

Supposing that you absolutely knew that if you called your Aunt Thelma, that she’d call the fire department. But you just didn’t have the number handy, or you didn’t think that even if you did call, that you’d have the right words to say?

Supposing that you believed that another human being would be better at asking for your salvation than you? Would you take advantage of it?


3,942 posted on 08/23/2007 7:55:13 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3931 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
There are many instances where Paul asks others to pray for him, but nowhere do I find anyone asking the dead to pray for them.
Again, there is no need to pray to anyone besides God. Jesus is our intercessor, no other.
3,943 posted on 08/23/2007 7:57:47 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3934 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; Dr. Eckleburg

That says nothing of dieing to self. What it says is what I quoted by Paul. Gal. 2:20, “ I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” We offer our bodies as living sacrifices and we mortify the deeds of the flesh but we don’t cause ourself to die. When Paul says he dies daily he is saying all that he has is at God’s disposal


3,944 posted on 08/23/2007 7:59:11 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3937 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

No one would be better to ask for your salvation than you. Others can pray for your salvation, and there are millions of mothers out there who pray for the salvation of their children every day, but it is all up to the one who created us. We are his, to save or not, as he choses.


3,945 posted on 08/23/2007 8:00:53 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3942 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

That certainly is the contention.

Does God discard the bulk of humanity to the fires of hell? And for what reason? And what makes the individuals that are advocating this philosophy sure that they are are of the elite?

I am still trying to square the Bible passages that declare that God is offering salvation to all men to this, the philosophy of death, to the bulk of humanity.


3,946 posted on 08/23/2007 8:00:57 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3939 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
That says nothing of dieing to self

Nonsense!

You do not understand Scripture.

Your modern interpretations are flawed.

Good Night!

I wish you a blessed evening!

3,947 posted on 08/23/2007 8:02:32 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3944 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

This goes to our difference in what the Communion of Saints is.

They’re not dead in our view.

We ask all our brothers and sisters and the Saints to pray for us.

So how we view Intecessory Prayer and Communion of Saints gets us the differences in our views on this issue.


3,948 posted on 08/23/2007 8:02:46 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3943 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

But, would the prayers (or the calls) of others be worth anything?


3,949 posted on 08/23/2007 8:02:55 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3945 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

“Sincerely ask the Lord with your free will to send you sufferings for the soul of another person.”

Why would one ask for suffering when the need of that person is apparent. I would ask for the opportunity to witness and befriend and in the process suffering might come, but to ask for suffering as if it had merit beyond going to that person is not biblical.


3,950 posted on 08/23/2007 8:05:06 PM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3941 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan

Wouldn’t there be a parallel with Jesus here?


3,951 posted on 08/23/2007 8:06:33 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3950 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

***Does God discard the bulk of humanity to the fires of hell?*** Apparently, he does, as they are not worthy of him. His words, not mine. Who am I to say to the one who made me that he is making a mistake?

*** And what makes the individuals that are advocating this philosophy sure that they are are of the elite?***

None of them I know of is claiming elitist status. We are all slaves to God.


3,952 posted on 08/23/2007 8:15:04 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3946 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

We can always ask for the living to pray for us, and Paul did it quite often. Nowhere do I read that we should pray to those already in heaven. Besides, they are all too busy praising God.


3,953 posted on 08/23/2007 8:20:32 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3949 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper; Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr
No, this is not the Reformed view of the word "obedient". Free online dictionary says this about the word: "Dutifully complying

My three version of the online dictionary don't have "dutifully."

"Dutifully" requires a wish to be compliant. satan has no such wish. By his actions, satan may "serve" God, but he does not obey

Compliance is obedience. I have more than 20 years in the military behind me and I know that being compliant doesn't require that you agree with it or how you feel about it.

One of the meanings to serve is to render assistance. Serving someone is always to the benefit of someone being served. The Book of Job shows us that (after the Fall) Satan and God were not acting as enemies. If Satan was make a deal with God in Job, what happened in Eden?

Please show me where does the OT specify (1) that Satan (by name, no Babylonian gods and Phoenician kings) fell from grace  and (2) when exactly did this occur.

I am willing to bed you will find it in the Apocrypha.

So what is your case for God making them evil?

The Apostolic Church would never say that God makes anyone or anything evil. We are evil because we reject God out of pride and arrogance and because we serve the necessity which is what our body demands. And we can't serve two masters.

The gun remains an inanimate object, it is never evil or good in and of itself no matter how it's used

If your will is controlled by God, then we are inanimate objects as well. If we do evil, then  it is God's will, correct? The only problem with that is that God's will is then the cause of evil.

Kosta: Are you suggesting God created Satan to use him for evil purpose?

FK:God's plan governs, so if God didn't want satan to be the satan we know, He would have created differently

In other words, the answer to my question is yes?

3,954 posted on 08/23/2007 8:35:32 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3883 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Thats because... You are not in control of the conversation..

I am. End of discussion.

3,955 posted on 08/23/2007 8:59:00 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3866 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; xzins
What makes you different than that poor slob? And how do you know?

Pssst, it's the 'indwelling spirit'...who tells me.

3,956 posted on 08/23/2007 9:02:21 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3907 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

You want names of people murdered by the RCC hierarchy?..
Find them yourself..

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/martyrs/index.htm


3,957 posted on 08/23/2007 9:04:28 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3874 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; P-Marlowe
But I will ask the question: what separates me from the elect? What defines the elect?

Pssst, it's the "indwelling spirit"....

3,958 posted on 08/23/2007 9:05:32 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3916 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Ah. That explains a lot of where you’re coming from.


3,959 posted on 08/23/2007 9:19:40 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3957 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor; D-fendr
The angel that showed John the truth in Revelation objected to John bowing to him, even though he was a perfect angel

No one bows to angels. The blessed Apostle did out of humility and not as worship. Surely, you don't think an Apostle of the Lord was confused?

If I has the original painting of the Last Supper on my wall, and a friend started to bow before it, I would tear it down and burn it before I would let them do it again

I am sure you would. But why? Because your friend bowed to Christ in the picture? Or because the painting of the Last Supper is not an icon of Christ?

Do you think he was bowing to the wooden frame, the paint, or the canvas underneath? Or do you think that by looking at the image of Christ in the painting he thought of the Lord and bowed to Him in his mind?

Paintings are also not icons. The icon writers, as they are called, bathe and always put on fresh and clean clothes, and go through elaborate prayers before they begin to work on an icon. To you maybe icons are pictures (in fact one clown called them "cartoons"), but then to a Jew the New Testament is just a book.

3,960 posted on 08/23/2007 9:22:31 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3920 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 3,921-3,9403,941-3,9603,961-3,980 ... 13,161-13,166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson