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.

***Then why do the Protestants, who claim they believe the Bible is authentic, deny that baptism is necessary for salvation?***

Because the Bible says Faith is the only thing necessary for salvation.

***This Love was freely given(NOT Forced) and Paul did not have to accept it any more than the Blessed Mother did not have to accept to be the Mother of Christ. They both had a choice and made Free Will decisions !***

Now this is very interesting. If Mary had said no, was there another virgin ready to accept? Was our very salvation dependant on the whim of a little girl?

I think you need to read Acts carefully. Paul was BLINDED by the Light of Jesus. He was on the way to DESTROY Christians when Jesus Changed him. Paul made no descision for Jesus, Jesus chose him.

***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?***

Rev.22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant [4] with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”

Warning: I ALWAYS use my Bible to tell the truth. John fell down to WORSHIP the angel.

Well goody for your church. In my church we pray to God the Father, through Jesus his Son, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. We don’t have any need to pray to those who died.

Show me one scripture that says to pray to the saints, or to Mary.

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

True it does explain a lot.. There are so many instances in so many places with so many names choose, chooseing a few would be tragic.. Without a good read of Foxes Book of Martyrs one single Pope might be blamed for it all.. The problem is much more entrenched than that.. Foxes book of Martyrs is however the tip of an iceberg not the whole story.. Much is missed.. Like the persecution of the Chinese church(even in Taiwan).. To this day that is an untold story..

Warning: I ALWAYS use my Bible to tell the truth. John fell down to WORSHIP the angel

Don't be so triumphalistic. You read wrong.

The word used in Rev 22:8 for 'worship' is proskuneo. KJV translates this word 100% of the time as "worship" which is what the word means. The other term that is sometimes translated as "worship" is latreuo. The fact is, however, that the ancient Greeks used proskuneo as "obeisance" and latreu exclusively as worship for God.

It was customary (and still is in some communities) to show respect, which in the archaic meaning of the word fell under "worship," by bowing or prostrating, or kneeling. In ancient times this applied to all who were socially above you and in Christianity to all whose order of creation is higher than ours, and that includes angels.

So, the Apostle was not confused, nor was he wrong. But he didn't worship the angel as if he were God.

Consider only the wedding vows of the Book of Common Prayer ""with my body I thee worship."

You have to be careful when jumping to conclusions based on what you read in English translation of the Bible. It is equally important or read the Bible in the context of times, culture and social norms.

So you don’t have “the indwelling spirit”?

I don't even know what that means. If you mean some 'voice' telling me "do this, do that" the answer is no. If you mean a desire to pray and ask God to cleanse me and lead me, then yes, the desire is there. But I don't feel that anything is "living" in me.

It might be good to balance your reading with a critical analysis of Foxe’s methods and motivation including his veracity and evidence.

Also reading about Lord Cromwell’s rule, Ireland, Siege of Drogheda, etc. will gives some more context and balance. Luther and the Peasants War and Calvin’s theocratic rule provide more.

I’ve been on threads that devolved to body counts - it’s not a pretty sight, or site. So, I’ll avoid discussing this subject further if it’s ok.

thanks for your reply..

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (1 John 4:12-13 KJV)

That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us. (2 Timothy 1:14 KJV)

Maybe you aren't "Elect".

Even more amazing is there are some who can’t imagine that He is also a God of wrath and righteous anger and judgment who will consign His enemies to “outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

And, according to Calvinistic philosophy, those enemies were PREDESTINED by THAT GOD to become his enemies. Their actions, their deeds, their EVIL, was PREDESTINED, ORDERED, SHAPED and DIRECTED by THAT GOD, so HE created HIS enemies and ORDERED them to become HIS enemies so HE could DAMN them. That's what you believe, right?

Paul was a CATHOLIC —> ALL Christians in the early years were part of the global, catholic Church. We started using the term Catholic (with a capital C) only after the work of Luther and Calvin, to show that this was the Universal, i.e. catholic Church, as opposed to the little, local politics groups supported by local princes who wanted to break away from the Holy Roman Empire.

The Orthodox Church did not practice selling indulgences, and disagreed with the Latin Church on issue of theology, yet we never changed the Apostolic theology to "reform" the Church.

How could you have? You were a million miles away and did not speak the language. :) If my guess is correct the early Orthodox did not reform the Latin abuses because they were in no position to reform. For physical reasons it just wasn't feasible. Ultimately, and unfortunately, in one view some of their abuses led to the Schism.

However they were not Roman Clergy.. they had their own churchs.. The Body of Christ is Universal(catholic) however it is not ROMAN CATHOLIC

Hosepipe --> you've been indoctrinated to being anti-catholic, so much so that you can't see that Kosta is ORTHODOX, not LAtin Catholic. The "Roman Clergy"??? What are you talking about? Even within the Churches that are in communion with the Latin Church, like the Syro-Malankar, there are no "Roman Clergy".

and sticking to that topic for the time, have you ever HEARD of the Maronite or Syro-Malabar or Chaldean Churches? DO google or WIKIPEDIA it at the very least.

Seriously HP, your "facts" are like copybook statements from an anti-"papist" propaganda book and are just plain wrong.

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.