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.

[MarkBsnr]

Right straight to the heart of things, my friend.

I would like to expand, though, on many of our Protestant friends’ different sects and their use and reliance on different portions of the Bible.

I have run across those who at least nominally read the whole Bible; we have those who place weight on the OT; those who eschew the OT and use only the New; many elevate St. Paul above the Gospels; some rely only on Luke and Acts; and at least one bunch that concentrates on Revelation.

[Seven_0]

In order for the fine to be "just" the rich man needs to pay more.

This is simply not true. The penalty for sin is the same for the rich and the poor. Is that just?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your wonderful post, dear sister in Christ!

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.

Of a truth, some have insisted that God must comply with the Law of Identity (Logic) and therefore they reject the Trinity and instead say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct. And yet the Scriptures are very clear that they are One:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

Likewise, as you have pointed out here, some have applied the Law of the Excluded Middle (Logic, either/or) to Jesus and rejected the revelation that He is both God and man.

And this dispute about God and His word - concerning whether/when or how He “repents” or changes His mind (e.g. extends mercy where He had extended judgment or vice versa) - is yet another example of man trying to fit God into his own mental box. Which is to say, this is man once again anthropomorphizing God into a small 'god' his puny, mortal mind can comprehend.

BTW - on various science threads over the years, the atheists and deists have often raised the exact same argument – the exact same verses.

From the deist’s point of view – everything is strongly determined. God wound it up in the beginning and here we are. He cannot change anything (including extending mercy after judgment or vice versa) - thus everything was determined from the beginning and therefore, because the Scriptures say that the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much (James 5:16) and it cannot be true by their presupposition, then therefore they reject all of Scripture - including the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Again, this is man anthropomorphizing God (in this case with a science degree LOL!)

The atheists on the other hand point to the same passages raised here at post 4902 and say (paraphrased) “See, the scriptures aren’t even self-consistent. They are just a bunch of superstitious hooey imagined by ancient sheepherders with no training in logic or science.”

Likewise both atheists and deists reject miracles on principle - if they cannot observe it or reproduce it, then it couldn't have possibly happened. (snicker...)

But we Christians know that God revealed Himself in this way specifically so that man could not find Him by his own “wisdom:”

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent...

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. – I Corinthians 1:19-25

So we Christians join our forebears in the hall of faith (Hebrews 11.)

By faith, we know that God is One in Three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

By faith, we know that Jesus is God enfleshed, that He was from the beginning, that everything was made by Him and for Him, that He resurrected and lives.

By faith, we know that God does not lie, that He does not change, that He will not leave us or forsake us, that He keeps every promise.

By faith, we know that God hears our prayers and answers us according to His own will, including extending mercy after judgment.

and so on.

And so those who live primarily by reason – whether atheist, deist or theologian – are likely to say our faith is a “cop-out.”

To them I say – that is the point. All of this is according to God’s will. Only believe. It really is that simple. And when you know the power of God personally - or when He appears to you which He will and at that time every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord ---- then you’ll understand.

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. - Matthew 22:29

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. - I Timothy 6:20-21

Praise God!!!

[hosepipe]

[.. You DO go to a "club" sometimes. ..]

Its not easy being "spiritual" sometimes,
You must wade through the latrine to get to headquarters..

[hosepipe]

[.. I firmly believe we disciples of Christ are constantly walking on water.... ]

Exactly..... our SOULS are supported by FAITH...
We walk on water..

[Alamo-Girl]

I sift

Therein is the irreconcilable difference between us. You trust yourself (or perhaps others sometimes) to do the sifting whereas I lean on the Spirit to do the sifting and He responds by bringing Scriptures alive within me. Thereby I know they are His words.

Herein lies the problem: what you believe may not be God or even from God.

To the contrary, I have known Him personally for nearly a half century. I love Him, believe Him, trust Him. I've thrown all caution to His wind. I've "let go" of this world. Words cannot describe the love, joy, peace and freedom I now have.

For me, there remains not so much as a smidgen of doubt as to Who HE IS. But of course I cannot prove this to you or anyone else.

[hosepipe]

[.. As I postulated earlier, it seems that almost all of our differences really come down to that one interpretation[apostolic succession]. ..]

Apostolic succession seems to me is to defeat the purpose of having apostles... and worse to deny and make obsolete the Holy Spirits ministry of selecting and appointing them..

IF SO, and I believe it is, then the concept(apostolic succession) is devilish in nature, Satanic in origin and evil in demeanor.. Only a cult could be addicted to it.. or other cults enabling it..

[hosepipe]

[.. +Paul warns us (was it because his own healing powers were slipping?): "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness" ..]

SO then, this conversation is NOT merely about Sola Scriptura?.. I would have to agree.. There is more at stake here than semantics..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Great post, A-G! I can only imagine the discussions you've had on the evo threads. People say the RF is a stormy place, but from what I've seen, the really contentious war is waged with the non-believers. My hat's off to you and anyone who takes up that battle.

But we Christians know that God revealed Himself in this way specifically so that man could not find Him by his own "wisdom"

Amen. A perfect plan.

"Make me to understand the way of thy precepts: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works...

And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts." -- Psalm 119:27;45

And right there is the paradox. "Make me do this...so that I will walk at liberty."

Some men would then deny this first reality, God's predestining will, thus denying the paradox when Scripture encourages us to recognize it and embrace it, by the will and strength of the Holy Spirit.

We are at liberty, we have been freed from the burden and shame of our sins because it was always God's plan from the beginning to redeem His children through the lamb slain from the foundation of the world...

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." -- Isaiah 53:10-11

Every star numbered; every hair counted; every one of Christ's flock called by name.

[hosepipe]

[.. Trouble is, the Scriptures have been touched and altered by so many hands and no originals exist to compare our copies to, that one can never assume and believe fully that any verse in the Bible has been there from the beginning. ..]

Is the Holy Spirit a real entity or NOT?.. Jesus left the Holy Spirit in charge for something, WHAT?.. Has the Holy Spirit been drugged by the devil or despirited or is he a myth?..

What exactly is the Holy Spirits job if he does exist?.. according to you.. a gofer?.. what?.. I ask this honestly not with guile.. O.K. with a little guile..

[jo kus]

(I wasn’t disagreeing with your response. More like cheerleading.)

Oh. I guess I misread your statement. Sorry

Regards

[hosepipe]

[.. One more thing regarding the "powers." They are limited to sacraments, or God's mysteries, such as the Eucharist, Marriage, Ordination, Baptism, etc. where the Holy Spirit affects the change. They are in syngery with God. ..]

Sacraments?.. or passions plays or spiritual acts or childish games or playing church.. I am amazed at this statement.. Sacraments effectivly removes a "real Holy Spirit" from any real meaning or power in "the church", like a Jewish "sacrament".. with "foreskins" and Yamakas and Chasadim or mitzvah..

[hosepipe]

[.. So, faith is not a belief? ..]

No.. faith is an act.. What you believe is what you believe..
We are called to be regenerated not educated..
Whether not so smart or very intelligent the call is the same..
The faith is the same.. Being smart is probably a hindrance..

[hosepipe]

[.. And what about Incarnation and Resurrection and apostolic miracles? You believe that? Just where do you draw the line? Where ever it suits you? ..]

I don't believe in miracles, I rely on them, daily..

[betty boop]

Every star numbered; every hair counted; every one of Christ's flock called by name.

Exactly, Dr. Eckleberg. We humans cannot even begin to fathom the Mind that made all things to be what they are. Yet we're happy to quibble with one another about the best way to understand God, Who is absolutely irreducible to human logic and experience in the first place.... Seems a little silly to me.

Thank you so very much for your many beautiful, gracious posts! I've been working on a big project this week, so haven't had the opportunity to be more engaged. But I'm "observing" every chance I get!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both oh so very much for your insights!

People say the RF is a stormy place, but from what I've seen, the really contentious war is waged with the non-believers. My hat's off to you and anyone who takes up that battle.

betty boop and I have long posted together on the science threads here and evidently we've developed something of a reputation. Many of our previous non-believing correspondents now congregate on another forum in cyberspace and have made a sport of throwing pejoratives at us over there.

The irony is this: that they would consider us to be such "enemies" of their worldview is a blessing to us not an insult. LOL! So if any of you are lurking, thank you!

We are at liberty, we have been freed from the burden and shame of our sins because it was always God's plan from the beginning to redeem His children through the lamb slain from the foundation of the world...

Indeed. The only true liberty is in Christ Jesus.

Before we were reborn in the Spirit, we might as well have been robots - because without Him we can do nothing .

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5

On the next post from betty boop:

We humans cannot even begin to fathom the Mind that made all things to be what they are. Yet we're happy to quibble with one another about the best way to understand God, Who is absolutely irreducible to human logic and experience in the first place.... Seems a little silly to me.

It seems silly to me, too!

To God be the glory!

[wmfights]

I've lost count how many times that excuse has been used by the RCC (and now you) in order to deprive the sheep of God's assurance, to make His promises only to a select few (the Apostles) and not to every one of His children for all time.

Matt 27:51 Then behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and rocks were split.

I suppose the importance of this is lost on those who do not believe in SCRIPTURE ALONE.

[wmfights]

In fact, Matt. 3:16 says "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. ...". This would make no sense if He went up and down three times first.

Scripture as always is the best guide.

The didache also has a great deal of flexibility in it concerning Baptism. Cold water, warm water, running water (streams, rivers) or still water. Our only infallible source on Earth today, SCRIPTURE does not establish that a strict ritual has been established that can only be done in a certain way. The establishmentarianism followed the institutionalization of Christianity.

I believe the dictates for Baptism are repent first and then be baptized. The key being repentance.

[wmfights]

15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

In reading that passage I was struck by verse 12.

Rev. 20:12 ....books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.

IOW, our works (the other books) are separate from our salvation (the Book of Life).

[betty boop]

bb: We humans cannot even begin to fathom the Mind that made all things to be what they are. Yet we're happy to quibble with one another about the best way to understand God, Who is absolutely irreducible to human logic and experience in the first place.... Seems a little silly to me.

A-G: It seems silly to me, too!

When you really think about the problem, it seems to boil down to this: God's revelation through Holy Scripture, a creature of His unfathomable Mind, cannot be authenticated on the basis of human reason, logic, and experience. It can only be authenticated through and by the Holy Spirit, Who is God. Which is why I think the best way to read the Holy Scriptures is simply to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. The criterion, then, is not human reason, logic, and experience -- much too small a "template" to compass God's Eternal Logos -- but the Light of God's Spirit moving us.

I know you read the Scriptures that way, my dearest sister in Christ, as I do....

On another note, re: our "previous non-believing correspondents [who] now congregate on another forum in cyberspace and have made a sport of throwing pejoratives at us over there." That's been a lot of fun! Among other things, we've been accused of doing exorcisms, and having "magic tea" parties.... And the biggest canard of all: that we are "anti-science." LOL! Still, we did get a book review out of it: LOLOL! :^)

Peace be unto that rowdy crew!

Thank you so much for your excellent essay/post, dearest A-G! (Must get back to work now....)