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 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: irishtenor
I still don't know what you think schism would look like, and how it would differ from the present state of Protestant disunity.

You seem to be using the level of unity in families you know as the standard for how unified the Church should be. But Christ has a higher standard for how unified His Church should be. He prays in John 17 that we would be one as He and the Father are one. So it seems to me that you are lowering Christ's standard for the degree of unity in His Church. Paul in 1 Cor 10 makes it very clear that there are to be no divisions among us. But what is a plurality of denominations if not divisions among us? Paul says that we must all agree, that we must all have the same mind and the same judgment. Your position, on the other hand, seems to 'water down' what Paul is saying, and settle for a lower standard of unity.

-A8

401 posted on 07/23/2007 10:22:23 PM PDT by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
A schism is something that tears apart the fabric of belief. Do you believe in Jesus and are counting on his work on the cross to save you? If so, we are united.

So the Montanist, Novatian and Donatist schisms were, in your view, not even schisms at all!

Have you read the fathers and carefully studied the first five-hundred years of Church history?

-A8

402 posted on 07/23/2007 10:25:51 PM PDT by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; irishtenor; P-Marlowe
And which human being has the Holy Spirit and is truly being led by the Holy Spirit?

How to recognize a brother or sister in Christ?

First, we must have "ears to hear" which is a gift from the Father:

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. – Matt 16:17

Then we notice the fruits. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit (Matt 7) The fruits of the Spirit are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control (paraphrased from Galatians 5.)

And when he speaks, we recognize his testimony:

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. – I Cor 12:3

And from that point forward, it is conversing in a Spiritual language - that those who are not brothers and sisters in Christ cannot understand:

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16


403 posted on 07/23/2007 10:32:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

But what you are saying is that, unless we totally agree on everything, there is schism. I don’t agree. No one on the face of the earth right now agrees totally with you or me. No one. What we can agree on are the basic beliefs in Christ. There we can have unity.


404 posted on 07/23/2007 10:33:59 PM PDT by irishtenor (There is no "I" in team, but there are two in IDIOT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
Thank you so much for sharing your insights!
405 posted on 07/23/2007 10:38:21 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
Belief, not works. Belief, not baptism. Belief.

Amen.

Eph.2:8, Rom.3:28.

406 posted on 07/23/2007 11:06:53 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: kawaii
yeah but Christ never broke the covenant God made with the jews,

And who says that He did?

407 posted on 07/23/2007 11:07:30 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
As is evidenced by this thread, if there is "schism" in the Body of Christ, it is the Catholics and EO's who are the schismatics. Protestants do not claim any spiritual superiority over either each other or over believers who happen to be EO's or RC's. We preach unity in Christ whereas the RC's and EO's preach unity only in regard to their Churches. If you are not in communion with their non scriptural dogma and their man made traditions, then you are the schismatic.

In psychology that is known as projection.

408 posted on 07/23/2007 11:13:59 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Amen. Terrific answer to that constant question. If the Holy Spirit quickens our minds and facilitates our understanding of Scripture, the "proof" is in the very real evidence of it -- the fruits of the Spirit.

"The work of the Spirit, then, is joined to the word of God. But a distinction is made, that we may know that the external word is of no avail by itself unless animated by the power of the Spirit...All power of action, then, resides in the Spirit himself." - John Calvin

409 posted on 07/24/2007 12:05:29 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; Alamo-Girl; xzins; irishtenor; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan
That is what all the heretics claimed

What does it matter that heretics mouth error and call it truth?

Without the guidance of the magisterium, people will misinterpret the Scriptures even on "important things".

lol. But according to the word of God, the magisterium is riddled with errors. Why would I put faith in such a misguided organization that gets so much wrong?

Trust the Scriptures, A8, and trust the power of God to accomplish His will and the power of the Holy Spirit to lead you in righteousness.

"Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.

They are brought down and fallen: but we are risen, and stand upright." -- Psalm 20:7-8


410 posted on 07/24/2007 12:22:25 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Additionally, the RCC wrongly teaches that a man must be absolved of his sins by a priest and the sacraments before he gets into heaven. This lends a definite nervousness to life that's totally useless. God alone determines the day we're born and the day we die. He knows every step of our walk with Him, and one way or another, He will bring safely home every one of His sheep.

Amen (Phil.1:6)

411 posted on 07/24/2007 12:28:00 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; irishtenor; xzins; P-Marlowe
Visible unity regarding doctrine is important. But correct doctrine is more important.

With that understanding, most Protestant churches contain much more truth and much less error than the RCC.

412 posted on 07/24/2007 12:30:41 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Amen. “Form over substance.”


413 posted on 07/24/2007 12:37:29 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8; irishtenor; xzins; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl
Heaven help us. We have turned worship of God into worship of self, while deluding ourselves into thinking that it is God whom we are worshipping.

LOL. "Worship of self?"

It's the RCC that worships something other than the Triune God and follows a corrupted worship service that dares to say the Lord's Supper is "invalid" if the "wrong words" are used by the priest.

Form over substance. Magic over mercy.

414 posted on 07/24/2007 12:48:21 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Elegantly said Alamo.

I would add ( based on the same verses on 'ears to hear" and from 2 Cor ) discernment of scripture.

A co-worker was recently conversing with a friend whom she shares regular time with. They were looking at The Rich Young Man in Matthew 19:16-30. They had just finished reading Christ's reply "Why do you ask me what is good. There is only One who is good." (Mt 19:17), when her friend began laughing.

She asked him, "Why are you laughing?"

He replied, "Because Jesus is really asking him, do you believe I am God?"

The Spirit of God has begun work on this man, and it is evidenced in his ears to hear, his fruit, his growing love of God and His Word, and his increased speaking and understanding of that which has freely been given to us.


415 posted on 07/24/2007 1:59:07 AM PDT by DragoonEnNoir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

folks who suggest that the repentant theif died under the new covenant and hence needed to baptize and beleive.


416 posted on 07/24/2007 4:18:33 AM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: All
As is evidenced by this thread, if there is "schism" in the Body of Christ, it is the Catholics and EO's who are the schismatics. Protestants do not claim any spiritual superiority over either each other or over believers who happen to be EO's or RC's. We preach unity in Christ whereas the RC's and EO's preach unity only in regard to their Churches. If you are not in communion with their non scriptural dogma and their man made traditions, then you are the schismatic. In psychology that is known as projection.

This is a bit more like denial, and it's on the part of protestants:

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

2Th 2:9 [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2Th 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

2Th 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
417 posted on 07/24/2007 4:24:18 AM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: kawaii

to clarify this is directed at the two posters who’ve asked i not post to them i wouldn’t want to offend them by pinging them, the rest of you feel free to have at anything i say...


418 posted on 07/24/2007 4:55:01 AM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: kawaii
folks who suggest that the repentant theif died under the new covenant and hence needed to baptize and beleive.

The thief did die under the New Testament and his faith in Christ saved him.

The issue in Mark 16 isn't the Baptism, it is the believing, since what is repeated in the second part of the verse is 'and he that believeth not is condemned'

Moreover, Christ gave that command after His Resurrection, so the Baptism is referring to the spiritual baptism of 1Cor.12:13, not water baptism.

419 posted on 07/24/2007 4:55:59 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! - Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Please explain how he could die under the New Testament when the Old had yet to be fullfilled?

The Temple was not yet destroyed, Christ had not yet risen, the Devil had not yet been confronted in Hell.

what is clear from mark 16:16 is that both are necessary however baptism will not save apostates.

the reason st john the forerunner is in the Bible is the need for both baptisms.


420 posted on 07/24/2007 4:58:57 AM PDT by kawaii (Orthodox Christianity -- Proclaiming the Truth Since 33 A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 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