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.

[kosta50]

Dr. E: Your Scriptures are a bit off. You quote verse John 1:9 as...

LOL! Talk about pot calling the kettle black!  Perhaps your source has something other than mine in John 9:5 as well "I am the light of the world." The word "light" is used metaphorically.

Notice the difference? God does not quicken all men or all men would believe and be saved

Every man has a chance to be saved through Christ, because "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... "—1 Tim 1:15 

Unless you know some who are not sinners, He came to save all of mankind.

[kosta50]

I mean, just look at the track record of humanity across time. We know what we're doing. Didn't the Israelites usually get it right on their own in the OT?

At least we blame the Israelites. According to the Reformed theology, God was the cause of their error, because He is in control. After all, we are only doing what God wills, right? If a bus driver drives the bus off the road, who's to blame? The passengers or the driver?

[kosta50]

This example and similar ones we see like humans created fit only for trash, utterly depraved etc. are an essential part of the logic of the TULIP theology. Without this plank in the theology, its logic results in God killing innocent children.

Sado-masochism comes to mind.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your insights and encouragements and those perfect Scriptures!

Who can read that perfect Scripture you offered as proof and not understand?

I suspect it happens most often, not by evil motive, but by man’s tendency to want a protocol of do’s and don’ts to which he can comply. The law stands as proof that man cannot comply with such a protocol. (Romans)

Truly, we cannot "do" any good apart from God. (John 15) Not a thing.

A man can pour out his life in helping the weak, the sick, the poor and the imprisoned – and it still amounts to nothing more than “filthy rags.”

But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. – Isaiah 64:6

Only God is Good – the only righteousness that remains before Him is His own. Our duty is to let go and let God “do” through us.

So many are willing to “do” but cannot “let go:”

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. – Matthew 19:16-22

The Great Commandment is to love God surpassingly above all else. That requires letting go of every thing and every one in this world – which is very difficult. It is much easier to compile a list of do’s and don’ts and put one’s faith in the list instead of God.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 3:3

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. – Galatians 2:20

If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. – Luke 14:26-33

Sad that a lot of Christians pray the Lord’s Prayer repeatedly pleading for what they do not yet understand: hallowed be thy Name.

Any thing or any one we treasure at the same level – or above – God – is an idol to us. It could be our lives, our will, our possessions, our beliefs, a religious figure – or even a beloved child or spouse or mother or father.

Until we get our priorities straight, everything we do is filthy rags and we are like the ones in Matthew 7 saying “Lord Lord” and His replying “I never knew you.”

But conversely, when we get our priorities straight, we do not need to sweat the details - God will do His own will through us (John 15, Romans 8, I Cor 2, et al). Emphasis mine:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matt 22:37-40

The fruits are His, not ours.

To God be the glory!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for all of your insights!

Emphasis mine:

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18

To paraphrase, men start out already condemned - not already saved.

Jesus' blood is sufficient for all, but not all will receive Him.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Not of the will of man but of God.

Maranatha, Jesus

[Alamo-Girl]

It is the Lord Jesus Christ we follow.

Amen! Praise God!!!

Thank you so much for that beautiful Psalm and for all of your encouragements, dear sister in Christ!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. - John 3:18

To paraphrase, men start out already condemned - not already saved.

Jesus' blood is sufficient for all, but not all will receive Him.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Not of the will of man but of God.

Amen, A-G! And how much more precious is this gift when we realize it is not of our own doing, but of Christ alone. And not because we sought it, but because God, who loved us before we loved Him, drew each of us personally and inexorably to Him by the Holy Spirit.

All because He wanted us with Him for eternity since before the foundation of the world.

How amazing is that?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your insights and encouragements!

And how much more precious is this gift when we realize it is not of our own doing, but of Christ alone. And not because we sought it, but because God, who loved us before we loved Him, drew each of us personally and inexorably to Him by the Holy Spirit.

All because He wanted us with Him for eternity since before the foundation of the world.

How amazing is that?

Truly, it is more amazing than words can tell!

From Genesis to Revelation, it all flows to that end, that Final Cause.

His Name is Alpha and Omega - and I AM.

Praise God!!!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

From Genesis to Revelation, it all flows to that end, that Final Cause.

Amen!

"...all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:15-16

It was by your prompting I found that wonderful verse from Ecclesiastes...

"That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath arleady been" -- Eccles. 3:15

We can't really explain it. We can't really understand it. But we sure mustn't deny it -- "that which is to be hath already been" -- by the will and purpose of God alone for His eternal glory.

[hosepipe]

Was not familiar with Fry.. Am now.. thanks..
An unusual gift writing hymns...

I remember once a group I was with sang Amazing Grace(a'capella) [except for a guitar in the first stanza] with stanzas none of us knew before and each stanza(10) to different "tunes" with the same and different meters..

After we(those near me) finished we looked at each and voiced "what was THAT"... LoL.. We didn't know or could not explain it to this day.. We just accepted it.. because of other things that happened at that meeting.. How did we all know the new words..?.. I have no idea.. There are "things" in the spirit/Spirit written nowhere in any document.. I Cor 2;9

[MarkBsnr]

If God gave us free will, then we are hardly thwarting His will. We have no power over God, but we have power over our actions.

If we are controlled, we have no free will.

If you care about your children, do you control their every moment?

It is is a fact that there are people who reject God. I count Madalyn Murray O’Hair as well as Aleisteir Crowley in that crowd.

[MarkBsnr]

Whoooooooeeeeeeee.

Got any more?

[MarkBsnr]

How do you know that God has implemented what He thinks best for me, individually? Has God implemented what He thinks best for Him?

[irishtenor]

If God was wrong, that means he worked contrary to his will. According to my thinking, God cannot work against his will. Whatever God does is his will.

I think the problem you are having is how to balance a God who is both Righteous and Loving. To be righteous means to do the right thing all the time, which God does. The fact that man dies and does not go to heaven is righteous, because he (man) was full of sin, therefore unworthy of God. The Loving part comes in when God chooses some to be adopted into his family, therefore being cleansed of sin, and then worthy of the honor of living with God forever in heaven. The fact that God picks and chooses whom he will save is loving, and the fact that God chooses who will die forever is righteous. No one deserves to be in heaven, no one deserves God’s favor.

God cannot be wrong. God was fully justified in destroying the whole population of the world. The fact that he saved eight is a demonstration of his love.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

God cannot be wrong. God was fully justified in destroying the whole population of the world. The fact that he saved eight is a demonstration of his love.

Amen. Love for the eight, and not for the whole world as some would like to think.

God is brand-conscious. His brand. 8~)

[MarkBsnr]

Wanted us, or wanted some of us?

He, according to Reformed theology, still discards a great many of us, as we would the rind from the orange or core from the apple.

[MarkBsnr]

With respect, it is not ‘die forever.’ It is ‘roasted in hell forever.’

I don’t get the loving part; if you have 6 children and you condemn (say) 3 of them to burn in hell forever, it doesn’t give the appearance of loving. It gives the appearance of whimsical tyrant.

[irishtenor]

It’s more like you have 1000 objects that you create. You decide you only want ten of them, so you get rid of the rest. The ten you save forever. We are nothing more than God’s creation, to do his will, nothing more. You guys never answered my question: Was God right in destroying the entire population except eight people?

[tiki]

Not a lawyer joke but I thought this was cute

It’s so dry in the South that the Baptists are starting to baptize by sprinkling.
The Methodists are giving out wet wipes.
The Presbyterians are giving out rain checks, and the Catholics are praying for the wine to turn back into water!

[irishtenor]

Funny :>)