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 evolution is a theory (your word), when will it becoe fact? I have yet to see evidence of any animal, insect, whatever, turning into another kind of animal, insect, whatever. You would think that with all the millions of kind of “things” in the world, at least one would be a half/half type thing. Is there any evidence of this that I do not know about?

That is a good question, but requires a detailed answer.

First, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that change is known to occur from generation to generation. You, for example, are not identical to either of your parents, nor to any of your grandparents. That is change in the genome over time -- evolution as a fact.

The theory of evolution seeks to explain millions and millions of facts, such as the difference between you and your parents. And the differences which have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years in multiple genomes.

The theory of evolution will never graduate from "theory" to "fact" -- science simply does not work that way. Theories explain facts! As Heinlein noted:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481

You should perhaps study scientific terminology, as that might help in these threads. I have posted a long list of definitions, as they are generally used in science, on my FR home page. It is a long list, so I will let you check it out there rather than posting it here.

Another problem with your question is the assumption that one "kind" of animal etc. turns into another "kind" of animal etc. in one generation. That is not likely under the current theory of evolution. In fact, that kind of change would be absolutely against the current theory of evolution.

Mutations build up slowly, and in many directions at once. When the environment changes, some indivuals in a population are better suited than others, and so reproduce slightly more efficiently (i.e, more of their descendants survive and carry on their genes). Over time those changes in the genome result in speciation.

If you want to see some modern examples of speciation, google "ring species" and you can see populations diverging until they can no longer interbreed--but still retaining all intermediate (transitional) populations.

You ask, "Is there any evidence of this that I do not know about?" The evidence for evolution occupies several floors on most major university libraries as well as the basements of some of our largest museums.

I am not sure how much of this evidence you are familiar with. From your post, I would guess you are on the creationist side of things. But the theory of evolution really is on a sound footing. It has been challenged by religious belief since it was published in 1859, and has become stronger and stronger with each challenge and with each new discovery.

Ok, a couple of questions that have been bothering me.
1. There are a multitude of high alpine lakes that have never been interconnected, but they all seem to have the same species of fish. Why is that? Where did all these fish come from?

I really don't know. But the answer should be easily obtained by DNA testing. DNA is a really powerful tool for determining relationships. If the answer is not currently known, I would bet that it soon will be. You might try google and see what you find.

2. If evolution means that animals will evolve into superior entities, how does that account for Democrats.

There are still apes and monkeys and all those other primitive species, aren't there? ;-)

Aren’t mutations a devolution instead of an evolution?

No. Mutations are a change. Devolution is more of a religious term than a scientific term.

Mutational changes can either be beneficial, neutral, or harmful.

Harmful mutations have the greatest chance of being dropped from the gene pool.

But it is incorrect to think of one mutation at a time. There are hundreds of mutations taking place at the same time, in all directions. Many are neutral, some are harmful and some are beneficial. The changing environment will favor some over others, but there is no way to predict which!

Sickle cell anemia is not normally a beneficial mutation, but it does carry some immunity to malaria. In some areas that is a very beneficial mutation. In other areas the same mutation is not so beneficial. All of these mutations are intimately related to environmental conditions.

As an example: going back into human history, as populations moved out of Africa they experienced lesser degrees of ultraviolet light. In Africa, dark skin is critical to limit the harmful effects of UV light -- as there is still enough penetration by UV light in even the darkest skin to produce the needed amounts of vitamin D.

In more northerly climes, with less available UV light, the skin needs to become lighter (via less melanin) in order to produce the same level of vitamin D. Mutations that permit this were necessary to population movements, until by the time populations reached northern Europe they had very light skin colors. (To go farther north required supplementing the diet with vitamin D from other sources, as the skin could only get so light.)

A very interesting middle ground in this mutation sequence is the circum-Mediterranean area. Folks living around the Mediterranean have a tanning ability--this lets the skin stay light during the winter to increase vitamin D production, but darkens the skin during the summer to protect the lower skin layers from excessive UV exposure. Nice mutations! Check out some of the "works in progress" on the French Riviera and see what I mean!

All of these examples show mutations, but mutations working in different directions at the same time. And, these are just a couple of the hundreds of different mutations, beneficial, neutral, and harmful, that were all going on at the same time.

We are the product of thousands of mutations over millions of years. And there is no reason to think the mutations have ceased.

But, the common definition seems to revolve around "A change in a DNA sequence." (Are you really looking for an answer or are you trolling?)

Both. From my reading there is hardly ever anything good about DNA mutations. It's nearly always a very bad thing. Wikipedia has a number of interesting points about mutation and DNA Repair

. For example:

"The overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to mend most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells."

My question would be what percentage is an "overwhelming majority"?

The DNA repair section is very bleak about any good coming out of defective DNA repair. But they did have this to say:

On some occasions, DNA damage is not repaired, or is repaired by an error-prone mechanism which results in a change from the original sequence. When this occurs, mutations may propagate into the genomes of the cell's progeny. Should such an event occur in a germ line cell that will eventually produce a gamete, the mutation has the potential to be passed on to the organism's offspring. The rate of evolution in a particular species (or, more narrowly, in a particular gene) is a function of the rate of mutation. Consequently, the rate and accuracy of DNA repair mechanims have an influence over the process of evolutionary change.[33]

Now I read this to mean that a mutation in, say an eye cell, can never be passed along to an offspring. Is that right?

Thank you. Now if you will truly open your heart and let Scripture be your guide you will be the first EO to amaze me

Actually, we understand the scriptures as it was menat in the original language.

I've also seen it expressed that immersing the individual three times is done to signify the The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit

I think I mentioned that too, so i am somewhat at a loss why you are repating it (hint: that's what the Holy Trinity is, which I mention). Geez.

The Didache says three times. the flexibility has to do with immersion by dunking or pouring. Either way you are overwhelmed by water, which is one of its meanings.

baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."—Didache, Ch. 7

Did you miss all this too? It's obvious that the author is associating baptizing in the Holy Trinity (that is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with pouring three times if living water is no available. The three times is being baptized in each perons of the Trinity, just as the Lord commanded.

The triple formula reflect the three Persons. This method is as old as the Church. But i guess you have to know Greek to get it right...

Scary isn’t it? You have the final say in your everlasting life. You do, not God. You can damn yourself. You can hop into that handbasket.

[Presumably, that hop is from the hand of God?] Yes, that is a VERY scary thought. I know I would never be able to do it. When I was a lost person, not only do I know that I wasn't smart enough to make the right decision, but I know now that back then I didn't have nearly the amount of love needed to come to Jesus. Not even close. It just wasn't a part of me to want God at all. I think Paul would understand what I was like very well. :)

God wants all of us to worship him completely and wholly in Heaven. You get to say NO. How about it, FK? Do you have the fortitude to say NO?

I DID say NO! :) I said NO for my whole life until God changed me.

Do you dare say NO to God? Or do you make that choice? And say YES to God?

I don't say NO like I used to. Once God set me free, then I was able to come to Christ. Knowing all there was to know about me, He "framed the issue" such that there was only one choice. It was an offer I couldn't refuse. I mean, God "could" do that, right? :) Believe me, I don't feel cheated or anything. :) Really, ask any Reformer if he or she feels "violated" because He did not respect their free will and changed them anyway. There really are worse things in the world to happen to a guy. :)

God does not want robot slaves.

God does not want robot slaves, He wants obedient children who know Who the Parent is. He doesn't want us questioning His ways and He wants us to know Who is in charge of everything. Now, of those good children, some of them know that they wouldn't last five minutes out in that world by themselves, and some do not know. :)

He wants fully aware and fully competent creatures to willfully worship Him. Are you up to the task?

ME? No way. Not even close. I am no where near fully aware and fully competent. Everything I DO know has come from Him, nothing from myself. Thankfully, He has given me "enough" to come to Him and worship Him in love. I am still totally dependent on Him for any level of awareness and competence that He wishes to share with me.

Now I read this to mean that a mutation in, say an eye cell, can never be passed along to an offspring. Is that right?

No, I am afraid you have this entirely backwards.

You were referring to DNA repair, and noting that the rate of repair inhibits change from generation to generation. That is entirely true.

But where there is no repair, or faulty repair (as in the quote you posted), those changes are passed on to the next generation. And there are indeed a lot of these changes (mutations) passed on.

But most mutations are neutral. Some are beneficial and some are harmful. Those which are harmful tend to be weeded out of the genome quickly. The others are passed on.

To conclude, you posted:

Now I read this to mean that a mutation in, say an eye cell, can never be passed along to an offspring. Is that right?

This is not correct. Rather, many mutations will be passed on in eye cells (and all other cells). Many of those will be neutral, some will be harmful and some will be beneficial -- in relation to particular environmental conditions. As those conditions change, the neutral/harmful/beneficial ratio will change!

Mutations are acting on perhaps thousands of traits all at the same time, and in differing directions. Most changes don't mean much, but some are critical -- for better or worse. It is the overall mix of traits, compared against the changing environmental conditions, that determines which members of a population will reproduce most efficiently.

Now I read this to mean that a mutation in, say an eye cell, can never be passed along to an offspring. Is that right?

Of course it can, if it is dominant. Dominant means if it "produces" something the "normal" gene doesn't. Thus Huntington's Chorea, a condition caused by a dominant gene, will be transmitted with absolute certainty to the offspring (and kill them by the time they are in their 30's, just long enough for them to have children and pass the gene to them; actually the condition could be eliminated in one generation if people with the gene opted not to have children!).

Mendalian genetics can predict probabilities of eye color, but in very rare cases spontaneous mutation may result in eye and hair color de novo. It's very, very rare, but all you need is one in millions even billions, to start a new "production line" that will perpetuate itself.

Some genetic defects are a result of sex cell division (splitting) into haploids. A portion of a gene breaks off (missing) or attaches itself to another chromosome (translocation), resulting in all sorts of birth defects. This is not even a mutation in the classic sense but mechanical scrambling of genetic material—a "computer" error.

But since radiation is know to have harmful effect on DNA, such splitting could have been caused by man-made radition. In all cases it is "mutation."

Of course, this example does not mean the condition becomes hereditary, but it can.

He "framed the issue" such that there was only one choice

So you are programmed to answer, and apparently also to fail to see that "only one choice" is not a choice but an oxymorom. That's like going to an election with only one candidate and you must vote.

Believe me, I don't feel cheated or anything. :) Really, ask any Reformer if he or she feels "violated" because He did not respect their free will and changed them anyway. There really are worse things in the world to happen to a guy. :)

There are cases where kidnapped people indentify with their captors and claim they really wanted to be captives. I think it's clear that this is not love.

Everything I DO know has come from Him, nothing from myself

How do you know that? He told you?

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.