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.

The practice of indulgences is Biblically correct. It was the corruption of various Church officials in granting them that was wrong.

Dante Alighieri referenced popes in hell and I believe that he was right.

[.. I have made two polite requests that we cease contact. I will ask once again that you do not contact me. ..]

Depending on what you say/post I am happy to comply..
If you get aggressive with a public comment the comment is open to rebuttal.. by us ALL.. This an open forum not your living room.. which would be a different thing..

We appear to be odds with each other on some subjects..
I am really not that FIERCE for you to be soo afraid of me..
I can and may respond to ANY post I deem applicable..

Do [Latins] believe that the Holy Spirit will leave the believer if they don't do specific things?

The answer is unquestionably "YES". I have discussed this with very reputable Catholic Freepers, and it is also the only logical conclusion if one holds to the view that salvation can be had, but then lost during life, for any reason, and then regained. The Holy Spirit will not reside or abide in the body of a lost soul, at the time. That would be a "serving two masters" dilemma, and we know that doesn't work.

One example would be failing to confess and be absolved from a mortal sin. In that case the Catholic view is that the Holy Spirit must leave until that situation is rectified. While I of course strongly disagree with Catholics on whether salvation can be lost, I will say that this view is at least internally consistent, given the stated parameters.

[.. One example would be failing to confess and be absolved from a mortal sin. In that case the Catholic view is that the Holy Spirit must leave until that situation is rectified. ..]

So then, Roman catholics believe the Holy Spirit is a mere "force" under the direction of the Roman Catholic heirarchy.. an employee..

That might be heresy and an unforgiveable sin.. pity, if true..

By Pauls understanding, you are

I'm, hopefully obviously, referring to the whose stories and writing we read about in the Church, in the Philokalia, etc., those who have truly lived the scriptures.

I appreciate your question in this post, and would like to pose the corollary to you. As I see Jesus and as I see how He taught us.

Why do you have such a hard time with it?:

God loves you. As you are. He always loved you. He will never stop loving you. There is nothing you can do to make Him love you more; there is nothing you can do to make Him love you less.

He loves all your brothers and sisters, all men and women. No more or less than you. He wishes you to love Him and them the same, with perfect love, no more or no less without consideration of who they are or what they have done or will ever do.

He is love and offers Himself freely to you to share in Him. If you wish, your wish will be honored. If you do not wish to share in His love, then your wish will be honored also.

I would really like to hear what you have to say about what God did in Noah’s time. Was God right in killing the entire world, except for eight people? Does God have that same right now?

As for Jesus, He loves his own, those he died for, those the Father gave him. Jesus didn’t lie when he said “I know my sheep and my sheep hear my voice.” He also said that not all were his sheep, but only those whom the Father gave him.

I have consistantly answered your questions, but when I pose a question, I would appreciate an answer, also.

God does love me, not as I am, but inspite of what I am, a sinner. I will be transformed when I get to heaven into a thing of beauty, a perfect creation, incapable of sin. Boy, I can’t wait for that.

I would really like to hear what you have to say about what God did in Noah’s time. Was God right in killing the entire world, except for eight people?

In the same part of scripture we read that God regretted, repented, of ever having created man. Then he obviously changed his mind again.

If God is omniscient and unchanging, what gives with this?

It remains a matter of great contention whether the Reformers reinterpreted Paul back to the original or invented something new

Pauline Chirstianity is not always in harmony with the Gospels. Consider John 5:28-29 "those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Sure sounds like the Apostles believed in work-based salvation.

AG's point that many documents were destroyed early on, so who can say for sure...we have all the examples from the OT. It happened over and over again that immediately after God set the ship straight that the Israelites quickly steered it off course again

That's my argument. :) based on that we cannot know anything, especially the OT, to be genuine and untainited. As far as the Israelites are concerned, maybe that's why it took the Gentiles to carry on the true faith, but if that is so, Christ certainly said anything about it.

For example, you probably agree that in the OT, God loves, or hates, based on individual actions and so on. In the NT, Jesus teaches us differently. If this were not different, then it would not be radical, would not be contrary to the understanding of God prior.

The OT when viewed throught the Gospels is different that the OT taken alone.

I'm, hopefully obviously, referring to the whose stories and writing we read about in the Church, in the Philokalia, etc., those who have truly lived the scriptures.

Amazing that a Catholic knows about Philokalia! Hesychasm is relatively unknown even to orthodox laity except what they hear in Church every now and then.

So what is your view on uncreated energies of God?

The OT when viewed throught the Gospels is different that the OT taken alone

That's correct. The OT is to be understood in the spirit of the Gospels; the Ot is a foreshadowing, an incomplete revelation.

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.