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

Amen, FK.

As the hymn says, "I once was lost but now am found."

It doesn't say "I once was lost but found my own way home."

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

But Mark, that's not what Scripture tells us. What is our rebirth if not having our wills changed? Why does God give the Holy Spirit to teach and lead us if we are "fully aware and fully competent?" If that were true, we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit.

God gives the Holy Spirit to those He draws in order to insure every one of Christ's flock will follow Him. And Christ will lose none of them.

Who presumes to stand before God and say "I am fully aware and fully competent enough to insure my salvation?"

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." -- Jeremiah 10:23

And yet you say it is the way of man, Mark. Whom are we to believe?

...their own "little secret."

And He said to them, To you has been entrusted the mystery of the kingdom of God [that is, the secret counsels of God which are hidden from the ungodly]; but for those outside [of our circle] everything becomes a parable.... With many such parables [Jesus] spoke the Word to them, as they were able to hear and to comprehend and understand. He did not tell them anything without a parable; but privately to His disciples (those who were peculiarly His own) He explained everything [fully].

~Mark 4:11; 33-34 (Amplified)

Get alone with Jesus. Let Him whisper the secrets of the Kingdom to thee. Then go, tell, rejoice, praise, proclaim and see the power and provision of Almighty God at work in this desperate world!

FK: "Believers can abandon God TEMPORARILY, but not to the point of losing salvation. Even during this time God never leaves us."

Not really... "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." [Gal 5:4]

No, no, no. :) The third and first clauses FOLLOW from the second. Paul is saying that IF you are seeking salvation from the Law, THEN you have fallen from grace and have been severed from Christ. Paul knew and TAUGHT very well that we CANNOT be saved by following the Law. Therefore, if one holds the false and impossible premise that it is possible to be saved by the Law, THEN, in this case, other IMPOSSIBLE things result, like losing one's salvation. Garbage in, garbage out. He is saying that if one thinks he can take care of everything by following the Law, then he doesn't need Christ for anything. You KNOW Paul never taught that! :) Of any author in the Bible, you know that Paul does not believe that one can lose his salvation.

FK: "God made His children, and He also made other humans [sic] who are not His children."

That's preposterous! We are all made in His image. If we are in His image then we are His children and he is our Father by default. The fact that some, maybe most, of them disown God all on our own, is a different story.

Where does this rule come from? I could build a mannequin that looked just like me and even put a computer program in to make it talk like me. But that wouldn't make it my child, whom I loved. In the Biblical sense, God is not everyone's Father by default. He plainly tells us that some are His children, and some are not:

John 1:12-13 : 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Children born NOT of natural descent. Those are the children of God. Obviously, many never become His children. In fact, with the usual qualifiers, NONE of us is a child of God until we believe.

PS do you call yourself a Baptiser or Baptist? If Baptist, then I am Orthodox...I think Kolo was pulling your leg when he said "Orthodoxer"... :)

Well, I'm glad you said something because you're right if your guess was that that was the ONLY reason I have been using the term. (I figured I couldn't lose if Kolo used it. :) I'll use whatever terms anyone wants me to for them, and I just found sometimes that it sounded awkward to say "Orthodox", such as in: "He's (an?) Orthodox (ed?), and some of his friends are Orthodox (ers? [- I guess not] :). They go to (an?) Orthodox (ed?) Church, and there are many Orthodox (ed?) Churches in the area. Some of their friends are Catholics and Protestants, but they prefer to hang around (the?) (other?) Orthodox (ed?). " That kind of thing. I don't know how any of that works, so I'll be grateful to take and follow any advice. :)

Without this plank in the theology, its logic results in God killing innocent children.

Who that has been created since Adam is "innocent" in God's eyes? In addition, does God number all our days or are they determined by ourselves or random chance?

Ps 139:15-16 : 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

Job 1:20-22 : 20 At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship 21 and said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised." 22 In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

Job knew who determined how long he would be on earth, and he was thankful to God for it.

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!

Are all or any eye cells part of the germline? Because in my understanding only mutated cells that are part of the germline can pass on mutations:

Cells that are not in the germline are called somatic cells. For example, all cells of the mammalian liver are somatic. If there is a mutation or other genetic change in the germline, it can be passed to offspring, but for a change in a somatic cell it will not be.

From somatic cell:

A somatic cell is generally taken to mean any cell forming the body of an organism: the word "somatic" is derived from the Greek word sōma (σώμα), meaning "body". Somatic cells, by definition, are not germline cells. In mammals, germline cells are the spermatozoa and ova (also known as "gametes") which fuse during fertilization to produce a cell called a zygote, from which the entire mammalian embryo develops. Every other cell type in the mammalian bodyÃ‚Â—apart from the sperm and ova, the cells from which they are made (gametocytes) and undifferentiated stem cellsÃ‚Â—is a somatic cell: internal organs, skin, bones, blood, and connective tissue are all made up of somatic cells.

So I stand by my original statement. A mutation in an eye cell CANNOT be passed along to offspring. A gene in a reproductive cell determines eye color, but the original mutation did not and could not have occurred in the eye in response to any type of external or internal process.

God tells him he has complete power over natural forces and humans, except one - he can’t make them love him.

Yes, I IMMEDIATELY thought of FR at that part. :)

Bruce’s main purpose in life is to win a particular girl. To make her love him. So the plot is set along the lines of our discussion.

When I saw that the "God" character had taken a stance contrary to mine, I had to give it a fair and balanced analysis. And in my totally unbiased view (cough, cough), I decided that the movie really wasn't trying to push or favor any sort of theology at all. The writers picked what they thought would be a POPULAR stance for God to hold. If people cannot make others love them, then why would it be fair if God did? In the minds of most of the general movie-going public, that would make perfect sense.

I'm not lumping you in with them because I know that you think about such things on a MUCH deeper level than the general movie-going audience. :) I was just guessing as to why the writers might have set it up that way for plot purposes. I don't for a minute think that the writers were trying to tailor anything to Catholics. Hollywood types certainly don't when they glorify abortion, the homosexual agenda, and embryonic stem cell research, for examples.

And it explores your question of “why an omnipotent being would ever want to relinquish His control over anything.”

You'll have to help me with the ending, but it seems that the classic would be for Bruce to come to understand that he does not belong in control of anything of God's providence because that is God's job. I honestly can't remember, so I'll just have to hope that's how it turned out. :)

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

Forest Keeper: I am still totally dependent on Him for any level of awareness and competence that He wishes to share with me.

Dr. Eckleburg: But Mark, that's not what Scripture tells us. What is our rebirth if not having our wills changed? Why does God give the Holy Spirit to teach and lead us if we are "fully aware and fully competent?" If that were true, we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit.

I couldn’t resist offering a few Scriptures to underscore the point you’ve raised – and to add that man is neither spiritually alive nor spiritually aware until He is reborn.

What profit [is there] in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? Hear, O LORD, and have mercy upon me: LORD, be thou my helper. Thou hast turned for me my mourning into dancing: thou hast put off my sackcloth, and girded me with gladness; To the end that [my] glory may sing praise to thee, and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto thee for ever. – Psalms 30:9-12

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 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 8:5-9

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth. – John 4:23-24

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:4

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. – John 3:36

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; - John 5:24-26

To God be the glory!

At least we blame the Israelites. According to the Reformed theology, God was the cause of their error, because He is in control. After all, we are only doing what God wills, right?

We blame the Israelites too because we are accountable for our sins. God was NOT the cause of their error in the sense that He injected specific sin into the hearts of some where that sin was not before. He doesn't have the sin to fill the hypodermic needle. However, He was still in full control and DID ordain their sin. To accomplish the ordination all He had to do was to leave them alone to their own devices, which He says He does several times in scripture, all the time knowing the results (e.g. Rom. 1:24, 26, 28.)

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

But that would mean that His will was to NOT be in control. It would mean that His will was that man would do whatever he wants, and God would accept any outcome. That would be a horrifying result to me. Talk about inmates running the asylum. :)

If we are controlled, we have no free will.

And if WE are in control, then God does not care, or does not love us as we love our own children.

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

YES! :) That is, for every moment that I have the power and their lives are on the line. For example, when they were toddlers and we were around a public pool, I never took my eyes off them for a moment, and told them whenever they did anything I didn't like. I made sure it was impossible for them to get into the water without my knowing it instantly. I was in full "control", but they did not fully understand it.

It is a fact that there are people who reject God.

I think most people do permanently, and all do initially.

[.. I rely on miracles, too, dear brother in Christ! ..]

Indeed many that do not believe in "miracles" rely on them anyway because their very existence is a miracle.. The window of life is very tenuous on this planet.. A little farther or closer to the Sun life(as we know it) could not exist.. No (earthly)axis held in place because of the moon... life could not exisit.. Just a little different atmosphere life could not exist.. This solar system being in a different setting this planet would/could be at extreme risk.. The Sun a little bigger or smaller or the Sun made of different elements life could not exist.. And because of much more probably... things I don't even know about life could not exit..

Yes.. we all rely on miracles.. daily.. moment by moment..
LOVE in all its nuances is a miracle versus random chance..
Random chance is so robotic.. Robots do not and can not Love..
Unless love is simulated.. which is not LOVE at all...
Must be why some/many have a robotic God.. and simulated Love..

Love of God takes/requires faith.. and is itself a miracle..
And miracle upon miracle upon miracle to generate it(love)..
Its all quite wonderful.. and miraculous..

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.