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.

[hosepipe]

[.. yup, like the witness testimony in the Salem witch trials. ..]

I am NO protestant... Wiccans are as legal as Masons..

[.. Don't you find it weird that you believe some propagandists but refuse to believe the word of The Church Fathers who lived under persecution? ..]

What you call church fathers or hand me down apostles I do not accept as apostles, brothers maybe, but not apostles.. .. its not strange at all.. Many were persecuted that held strange ideas.. But then strange is in the perception.. I am suspicious of dogma, most any dogma..

[D-fendr]

I am suspicious of dogma, most any dogma..

That's a very dogmatic statement. :)

I'm guessing it's not the set of beliefs you oppose, certainly not your own, but dogma defined by an authority?

[hosepipe]

[.. Certainly not your religion? So, it's another definition of religion that you must be referring to. I'm wondering what is it that makes religion not the type of religion you would be part of? ..]

Jesus came to establish a family not a religion.. Religion was tried already with Judaism.. didn't work.. Too cynical?.. Maybe..

[.. Is it any institutionalization that crosses the line for you? Or authority of some kind - any offices, preachers, etc? Is a congregation, in the usual sense, part of the bad definition of religion? ..]

I see christian religion as a club.. Jesus did not forbid clubs.. it is part of the plan, I guess.. Seven churchs in Asia (Rev).. He(Jesus) was not happy about them generally either.. Revelation is The Vision of Jesus Christ(Rev ch1;1)..

[.. Would you consider Southern Baptist or the Episcopal Church "religions" in the perjorative sense? ..]

As I said above.. I see them as clubs and/or cults.. all of them.. What do I do about it?.. Nothing.. Thats not my job.. Some clubs have produced some good things I suppose.. I've tried them.. many of them.. not good for me.. I'm just sharing my thoughts here.. probably wouldn't share this way visiting one of the "clubs".. Would be disrespectful.. and wrong in that setting.. People have the freedom to meet however they want to..

[hosepipe]

[.. That's a very dogmatic statement. :) ..]

LoL.. true.. DOH!..

Spiritual authority is given by the Holy Spirit.. its not an appointed occupation.. I think.. Hopefully I can recognize a valid authority.. At least I pray I can.. I think I do.. God help me if I do not..

[D-fendr]

Ok.

But if you try to claim yourself as some religious authority, spout dogma or, Heaven forbid, start the Hosepipian Christian Church, I’m gonna call ya on it..

:)

[Forest Keeper]

The NT tells us that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

Baptism by the Spirit is necessary for salvation, but not by water. Baptists see the water baptism as being symbolic of the already accomplished Spirit baptism.

[hosepipe]

[.. But if you try to claim yourself as some religious authority, spout dogma or, Heaven forbid, start the Hosepipian Christian Church, I’m gonna call ya on it.. ..]

"So be it, so let it be written.." -Popepipus I..

[D-fendr]

Hosepopipus?

I dunno, “Thou art Hosepipe and upon this rock..” doesn’t have quite the same ring..

{^_^}

[Cronos]

That’s Phil, the Prince of insufficient light. He darns people to Heck.

More Dilbert fans, eh? WEll, SOMETHING we can agree on :)

[Cronos]

Perhaps Calvinism does appeal to you. I would pose one question: for the “elect” — why isn’t it possible that this group is already filled, was already filled centuries ago and the rest of us are not the “elect”? All of us?

[Cronos]

You do realize that the only way God can claim "ignorance" (LOL!) is if there is another "god" who fathered the reprobate

Which sounds too much like Lord of the Rings and the Dwarfs...

[Cronos]

It was only after the Reformation and religious wars had ended that state power was not used to force Christians to comply with one Church's dictates.

You're kidding right? After the "Reformation", local princes took over -- the petty German and HAnseatic and Scandanavian princes were itching for some reason to control the wealth in the Church (remember that King Henry VIII robbed the monasteries, and that was one of his reasons to break away from The Church). State power was used after that. Before the 1500s, the Church by virtue of being separate from the state, gave Europe a chance to have independence instead of religious and political power being concentrated in one person, like the King of England.


Among the "Christians", you portray as being "persecuted" by the Church, the Abigensians and Hussites were Gnostics, not Christians. Ditto for the others

[Cronos]

The Huguenots were persecuted by the Government of France.

[Forest Keeper]

MHG: "You may thank Elsie for that beauty. I lifted it from an Elsie post that was so very 'to the point'. "

Elsie: "I did?? My Alzheimer's now is in a state where I may hide my own Easter Eggs!"

Don't worry about it. I consider it a full blessing when one cannot even keep track of one's own genius, as there is so much of it. :)

[Cronos]

And all that persecution could have been avoided had they simply chosen to remain illiterate --- Biblically illiterate.

So, you associate yourself with the Albigensians, eh? Well, here's what they believed in: The Cathars claimed there existed within mankind a spark of divine light. This light, or spirit, had fallen into captivity within a realm of corruption — identified with the physical body and world. This was a distinct feature of classical Gnosticism, of Manichaeism and of the theology of the Bogomils. This concept of the human condition within Catharism was most probably due to direct and indirect historical influences from these older (and sometimes also violently suppressed) Gnostic movements. According to the Cathars, the world had been created by a lesser deity, much like the figure known in classical Gnostic myth as the Demiurge. This creative force was identified with the Old Testament God and was not the "True God", though he claimed for himself the title of the "one and only God". The Cathars identified this lesser deity, the Demiurge, with Satan. (Most forms of classical Gnosticism had not made this explicit link between the Demiurge and Satan).

Essentially, the Cathars believed that the Old Testament God of Jews and Christians was an imposter, and His worship was a corrupt abomination infused by the failings of the material realm. Spirit — the vital essence of humanity — was thus trapped in a polluted world created by a usurper God and ruled by his corrupt minions.

While this is the understanding of Cathar theology related by the Catholic Church, crucial to the study of the Cathars is their fundamental disagreement over the meaning of "resurrection". In the book Massacre at Montsegur (a book widely regarded by medievalists as having a pro-Cathar bias) the Cathars are referred to as "Western Buddhists" because of their belief in "re-incarnation" and non-violence.[1] Such were the disagreements that eventually led to the extermination of the sect.

the hussites were primarily a political movement while Paulicians denied the Trinity.

Do you agree with any of these?

[Cronos]

It is hilarious that Uncle Chip and hosepipe seem to consider people who are plainly Gnostics as people on “their (UC and hose’s) side”. A little research into what those groups stood for tells us that they were NOT Christian in any way. Next UC and hosepipe would support the other great heresy that did get by, Islam.

[Cronos]

As Christians we should always strive to resolve our differences peacefully.

Agreed. There have been atrocities (and I use that word) on BOTH sides. But no more, there should not be any more Christian on Christian physical violence. We can disagree, argue etc., but at the end of the day, you are free to believe what you wish.

[Cronos]

Power and the wealth in the monasteries.

Remember that 300 years earlier, the French King had done the same thing to the Knights Templar.

[Forest Keeper]

If I were Pope, could I damn P-Marlowe to hell if I knew that he was a serial killer that made Jeffrey Dahmer look like a choir boy? Nope. That’s what the Judgment is for.

Just to follow up from my other post, why couldn't you, as Pope, or you, as the Church, condemn anyone to hell? I mean, wouldn't that just be a binding on earth?

[Cronos]

There are tons of cults out there based on Sola Scriptura — i.e. each man’s interpretation of the Bible. E.g. the Reverent Moon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.