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.

I think “indwelling spirit” as used is very much a term of art in some theologies.

There is likely some corollary to this term, in your usage, in Catholic spirituality, and might therefore be of use in furthering communication. Not that there aren’t still other disagreements.

I believe we might find that if the terms are better clarified that much of disagreement would fall back where it, possibly, exists in fact: on the question of authority, in this case primarily teaching authority, rather than on a temporary confusion in terminology.

Just a thought; I may be way off base.

While God may say He repents of something, He's certainly not speaking in human terms of wishing He had done something other than what He did or does. He's God. He declared the end from the beginning and from the beginning He knows the end. Not a confused, uncertain, regretful end, but the end that He purposed in His creation from before the foundation of the world.

So the greater truth of God's words is always found by coming back to who He is -- the First Cause of all things; the sovereign creator of heaven and earth who does all His pleasure.

Does God second-guess Himself? Has God ever made a mistake? Does God wish He could undo something He did and do it differently?

Hardly. He's God. There is no other.

"I [God] will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them." -- Jeremiah 18:8

And yet...

"God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent." -- Numbers 3:19
"The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." -- 1 Samuel 15:29
"I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent." -- Ezekiel 24:14
"For I am the Lord, I change not." -- Malachi 3:6
"With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." -- James 1:17

So is God double-minded?

No. If we seek to perfectly reconcile all Scripture to our imperfect understanding then we might just as easily disregard the paradox that is at the core of our faith -- that Christ was both man and God. Since Scripture interprets Scripture we realize the greater truth -- God does not actually repent because He is perfect and all His judgments are perfect.

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." -- Deuteronomy 32:4

As Hosepipe said, there is human knowledge which is physically-discerned. Our sense of autonomy and "free-will" is part of this knowledge which on some temporal level certainly feels true.

But the greater truth is God's wisdom, spiritually-discerned. And within this knowledge is the recognition that God ordains our lives as He sees fit, one way or another.

Some men think this is foolishness, and that doesn't surprise me at all.

I appreciate you tackling this one.

We even find some agreement here:

So the greater truth of God's words is always found by coming back to who He is..

Though we might diverge a bit in the clauses afterward.

If we seek to perfectly reconcile all Scripture to our imperfect understanding then we might just as easily disregard the paradox that is at the core of our faith -- that Christ was both man and God.

Am I allowed an "Amen" too?

And I think in terms of the book question, you are coming down on the side of the "error in the reader" possibility.

Thanks very much for your post.

Fascinating. You are the one who disrespects the epistles of Paul and the book of Revelation - and have argued that the Scriptures are full of errors

I don't disrespect them. I disagree with their Protestant interpretation. The Scriptures are, unfortunately, full of errors. That is a fact.

We (at least most of us) on the other hand receive Scriptures as a revelation of God

I can assure you you that so do I. It is our mode of reception that differs.

We don't dismiss Scriptures for any reason.

I don't dismiss Scriptures. Rather, many Gnostics do.

I choose to believe God

Herein lies the problem: what you believe may not be God or even from God. You dismiss human error that has corrupted the Scriptures. Indeed, you seem to incorporate the revelation along with human corruption into an indistinguishable whole. I don't.

I sift, and if I am not sure I don't make up rationalizations. I don't add vowels, or commas, or whole verses. Nor do I erase anything. How can one and the same inspired author use different vocabulary, prose, meter or grammar? To me that is not as easy to ignore as it is to others, most of whom don't even known that there is a problem with vocabulary, prose, meter and grammar. I guess ignorance is bliss. And it could be a choice.

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

I guess so. I mean, I fell off my chair when I learned that they direct the Holy Spirit into clergy-approved bodies for sealing. I always thought God might be in charge of something like that. :) Someone said that they just "ask" the Holy Spirit, but I didn't see if the Holy Spirit was free to decline, and how would they know it. Or, if the Holy Spirit was free to enter those whom the Catholics have not deemed appropriate. Under normal circumstances, it seems that the Holy Spirit cools His heels in the bull pen until called for by the managers.

Obviously you cannot read another person's mind to know his motives in selecting Scriptures to present here, in a sermon, a book or whatever

And what makes you think a person knows, or admits his or her own motives?

More importantly, that you do not know "what" the indwelling "spirit" is has no bearing whatsoever on those of us who do know the indwelling Spirit, personally

That's because no one can prove it. Just because you say that you have the indwelling spirit that doesn't mean that you do, or that what you believe is indwelling your body is the "indwelling spirit." We kinda have to take YOUR word for it. And that's no different than tradition of men.

There is a very strong current of anti-intellectualism in some Protestant circles. I’m not sure it is a necessary part of sola scriptura, but it and individualism may explain some of the trend.

They would find me blasphemous if I said that trying to get all your knowledge of what scripture teaches from scripture alone is uselessly self-depriving. So I won’t say it. :)

I’ve been surprised occassionally. There used to be a a frequent poster on these threads, 77Bass? or something like that. I don’t know if this rings any bells with you. He had quite a different approach to these areas than we’ve seen thus far. It was very interesting and, since he was a divinity school graduate, he could speak authoritatively for a different school of non-Apostolic theology.

Anyway, I miss his input.

Your list has had a good result on the thread, IMHO, some interesting ways of grappling with it.

thanks for your posts...

[.. Just because you say that you have the indwelling spirit that doesn't mean that you do, or that what you believe is indwelling your body is the "indwelling spirit." ..]

Like transubstantiation?.. Swallowing a physical wafer into your physical body somehow effects your spirit.. instead of your flesh.. Talk about a Cargo Cult..

Different strokes for different folks I guess.. The blood of bulls and goats was never adaquate to lead toward the "Spirit".. As Jewish history accounts in detail.. still isn't.. Amazing that even now some christians simply cannot grasp the life of the spirit/Spiirt..

But then that is what THIS life is about, I suppose..
To PROVE THAT.. Whether you(we) can grasp a relationship with a Spirit..
The Holy Spirit and NOT doctrines of demons(spirits)..

Pauline Christianity 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.

I don't see this passage as any big problem. It just has to be seen in light with the greatest weight of other scripture. Here, Jesus makes a simple and true statement since no one can do any good in the eyes of the Lord, if he is not saved. Also, everyone who is saved WILL DO good in the eyes of the Lord. I think there is an implicit license for a little interpretation here because if taken in its strictest sense, the passage means that all abortion victims automatically go to neither Heaven nor hell, because they have never done anything good or evil. I don't think either of us thinks that sounds right.

FK: "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 untainted.

But I don't have faith that the Bible is God's word based on what any man wrote from himself, or what any men agreed to organize into one volume. God said that His word is His word, so the faith is in that truth. If the Bible was actually not God's inspired word, then I would agree with you that we could know nothing. God allowed the Israelites to mess up all the time for His purposes. Lessons have been learned from all of those failings, for one. But if God deliberately allowed error into His own word, then we could learn nothing from it. It would make Him a liar. I see no possible Christian purpose in that.

Thank you each and every one for keeping me pinged to this amazing discussion. I have copied, pasted and printed the comments so that I can read them with care during this day. I would like to say that I firmly believe we disciples of Christ are constantly walking on water...or sinking in doubt, being overcome in storms of unbelief (seeing the wind and waves and taking our eyes off Jesus) and so crying out to be rescued! Metaphorically, just like it was in reality for Little Faith Peter, so it is for us. That's what it means, IMHO, to be a disciple, a Christian. The hand of Christ is never far from His sinking ones (see Psalm 145:14 for instance), and He is always on top of everything, graciously, gladly willing to pull us back up where we belong (see verse 18 same Psalm)!

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.