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.

If the being you worship has parts according to its essence, then that being is a created being, because composite beings (i.e. beings having parts) have causes. Their parts are their causes, and that which makes their parts be one composite being is also a cause. And if you are worshipping a created being, then you are violating the First Commandment. Therefore, if you are worshipping a being that has parts according to its essence, then you are violating the First Commandment.

-A8

adiaireton8: So beware of it and don't beware of it, at the same time and in the same sense. God ways are not our ways, and they are our ways, at the same time and in the same sense. God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and they are our thoughts, at the same time and in the same sense.

Aha, the above reveals why this sidebar with you seems to have no end.

Like space/time, causality, mathematical structures, every thing and every one - logic is part of the Creation - not a restriction on the Creator.

A thing is true because He says it.

We must believe Him unreservedly to follow Him. When Christ told Peter to come to Him across the water, while Peter believed everything was fine, but when he noticed the water, he sank.

me: But if the sheep hears and obeys the Shepherd's call - no matter how badly the pen might be built - he will be ok.

iscool: And who taught you that??? The author of the Bible or the leader of a religion???

The author of Scriptures taught me as He has taught you:

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. - I John 4:4-6

You didn't get that out of the Bible...I'll bet you got that from studying philosophy...Don't you remember God said to avoid philosophy???

“which human beings are following the Spirit such that what they believe and teach most accurately conforms to the whole of the Apostle’s doctrine/teaching?”

It’s a circular question for the answer is in the question. The notable thing that’s missing is any need for a professional mediator.

Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

A-G,

I have already explained to you in past discussions why your claims about God and logic are false. I laid it out very carefully. And you never refuted it, nor did anyone else. So it appears to me that if I lay out the problem with your position, you simply ignore it, and then keep repeating your position.

I'll try one more time to show you why it is false. If you ignore what I'm saying, then I will leave you to your folly.

Logic is indeed not a restriction on God. That is correct. That is not because God can violate logic, but because God is not "restricted" by His own nature, by the nature of Being, just as God's being unable to sin (and unable to lie, and unable to make Himself cease to exist) is not a "restriction" on His freedom. And logic is a science of Being. That is why acknowledging that God is not restricted by logic does not require conceding that contradictory claims about God can both be true at that same time and in the same sense. As I have explained to you before, claiming that the LNC does not apply to claims about God is self-refuting, for it implies that it itself is both true and false, at the same time and in the same sense. Take every verse in the Bible, and put a negation sign in front of it, and thus make an "Anti-Bible". Then the implication of your position is that the Anti-Bible, and the Bible, are both true, and they are both false, at the same time and in the same sense.

In other words, the implication of your view about God and logic is that we can *know* absolutely nothing about God. But you always leave a little exception for yourself. Your exception is that your own claim about God's relation to logic is not itself subject to itself. And that little exception is the fatal flaw that tears down the whole charade.

-A8

It’s a circular question for the answer is in the question.

I'm looking for proper names of human persons, and/or the proper name of a denomination. The question: "Which human beings are following the Spirit such that what they believe and teach most accurately conforms to the whole of the Apostle’s doctrine/teaching?" does not contain the proper name of any humans or the proper name of any denomination. Therefore, it is not a "circular question" because the answer to the question is not in the question.

-A8

Nope...Can't buy that...

Priest and elder are two different words in Greek...They are two different words in English...And I'm not really interested in what some Latin translations are...

Then you are uninterested in the proper etymology of the word. It was the English who coined the word "priest" as their rendering of presbuteros. This was its first meaning. It was only latter that its meaning was extended to include what the Greeks called hiereus. This latter extension of meaning does not invalidate the original meaning of the word.

But all of this is much ado about nothing. The office of priest/presbyter/elder/presbuteros predates its name in English. For the sake of clarity I have no problem with using the original Greek terms. Thus it still remains that the Biblical offices of episkopos, presbuteros and diakonos continue to exist among the Catholics and Orthodox but not among the Protestants.

You have the answer;

Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

Now you may not like what you percieve as the uncertainty in it but that’s God’s business and like Jesus said to Peter when he tried to divert the piercing glare of the Master’s eyes, “What’s it to you?, you follow me”.

Christianity is a messy business since each is called individually in their own circumstances and it is for the most part “on the job training”. But if there is a lesson to be learned it is to let God do it His way or like Uzzah, we will find out the hard way He needs no help.

Indeed, we have gone down this road before. But it ended, not because you won but because it is futile to debate the issue with someone who values reason above or equal to faith in his epistemology.

Again, for the record, not to restart the previous debate - my position is this:

Faith and reason are complementary, but reason cannot substitute for faith.

The above is a reflection of my personal epistemology and the epistemology I expect to see in my brothers and sisters in Christ. How we know what we know and how certain we are that we actually know it.

The most certain knowledge I possess are the revelations of God the Father in:

1) the Person of Jesus Christ,

2) the indwelling Holy Spirit,

3) Scripture and

4) Creation.

Everything that follows is cast in uncertainty – including my own sensory perception and reasoning - and those of my correspondents, commentaries, doctrines and traditions.

Again I say, I do not value even my own senses in the same league with the revelations of God the Father. If what I see does not comport with what He said, then it is my sight that is in error, not His words.

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. - Isaiah 55:8

I believe Him - plain and simple.

Hello Petrosius,

Consider the main duties that a Priest has in scripture. He is able to offer sacrifices and is able to enter into the Holy of Holies.

The reason most non-Catholic churches do not have this specific office, is that through Christ we have all become priests.

As you come to him, the living Stone- rejected by men but chosen by God, and precious to him- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 2:4-5)

Each of us can offer sacrifices to God, each of us can come before His presence rightious, not because we are rightious, but because of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. We need no mediator between God and man, because Christ has become our High Priest and fulfills this role perfectly.

When Jesus died, the curtain of the temple, beyond which only certain priests could go, was torn in two (Mt 27:51). Each of us can now go into God’s presence, through Christ.

The existence of a priestly class which stands between men and God is one of the traditional critiques of the Catholic church for this reason.

Beautifully said. Thank you!

Forgive me for jumping in the middle of your sidebar discussion. I’ve been following this thread and am trying to see if I understand this point correctly.

Adiaireton8-You want AG to figure out what body of Christians is most accurately teaching/following the Scriptures (in a nutshell), correct?

A-G, you are saying that the Holy Spirit is the one imparting truth to you. Correct? And that if the Holy Spirit is telling A8 one truth and you another that it doesn’t matter as long as we have our own truth given to us by the Spirit?

So it doesn’t really matter what anyone believes as long as we believe it comes from the Holy Spirit. That really confuses me. Did Jesus really leave us nothing but the Spirit and our own minds to interpret what the Spirit is telling us? That’s it? Then all this disagreement between different religions is nonsense? No one should have a problem with Catholics that honor Mary if that is what the Holy Spirit tells us to do? Boy, the Religion Moderator will be out of a job pretty soon then!

Now, A-G, if that is not what you believe please explain more to me. Maybe you really do believe that there is a group (all led by the Holy Spirit, of course) on Earth that is teaching more accurately than others.

You have the answer;

Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

That is an answer to a different question. That is an answer to the question: What characterizes the sons of God? Or What is true about those who are led by the Spirit? But it does not answer my question: Which particular human beings [identified with proper names] and which denomination [identified with its proper name] most accurately conforms in its doctrine to the whole of the Apostle’s doctrine/teaching?

Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”

To understand why this verse does not answer my question, see the "Epistemological Objections" of this post that Gamecock posted this morning.

-A8

When I was younger growing up in church, during the Evening Service we sang an old hymn that captures the Romans 8 verses:

God Leads His Dear Children Along
by G.A. Young

In shady, green pastures, so rich and so sweet,
God leads His dear children along;
Where the water’s cool flow bathes the weary one’s feet,
God leads His dear children along.

Some through the waters, some through the flood,
Some through the fire, but all through the blood;
Some through great sorrow, but God gives a song,
In the night season and all the day long.

Sometimes on the mount where the sun shines so bright,
God leads His dear children along;
Sometimes in the valley, in darkest of night,
God leads His dear children along.

Some through the waters, some through the flood,
Some through the fire, but all through the blood;
Some through great sorrow, but God gives a song,
In the night season and all the day long.

Though sorrows befall us and evils oppose,
God leads His dear children along;
Through grace we can conquer, defeat all our foes,
God leads His dear children along.

Some through the waters, some through the flood,
Some through the fire, but all through the blood;
Some through great sorrow, but God gives a song,
In the night season and all the day long

it is futile to debate the issue with someone who values reason above or equal to faith in his epistemology.

Since I do not "value reason above or equal to faith", you are not talking about me.

Faith and reason are complementary, but reason cannot substitute for faith.

Of course I agree. I'm Catholic. (See Fides et Ratio.)

But none of that entails that contradictory claims about God can both be true at the same time and at the same sense.

-A8

Thank you so much for reply and your question!

Now, A-G, if that is not what you believe please explain more to me.

The miscommunication is in this sentence, highlighted:

So it doesn’t really matter what anyone believes as long as we believe it comes from the Holy Spirit.

Believing is something man does. God knows.

In other words, it is not whether "we believe" the Spirit is leading us, but rather whether He actually, truly is leading us.

Those who share in the mind of Christ (I Cor 2) and are following the Spirit (Romans 8) know it - because they truly, intimately, personally know Him.

Gritting one's teeth, covering his ears, stomping the ground and muttering "Jesus Christ is Lord" will not do.

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.