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.

Since we are talking about the indwelling Holy Spirit, as opposed to His influence alone, I don't understand your point about not being able to repent. Sinners originally repented before the Spirit indwelt, so (if the Spirit left) why couldn't they just do it again, theoretically?

There is a difference between being indwelt and the influence of the Spirit. Even before His indwelling, He is able to influence man. Obviously, it is not us who brings ourselves to original faith in Christ, but the Spirit's influence and effect within us. That influence is dependent upon our response to His promptings.

When we say the Spirit "left", that means His influence upon our lives has greatly diminished because of our hardness of heart and desire to fulfill the fleshy ways. It becomes increasingly difficult for one to return to Christ after returning to the vomit of their former ways. When the Spirit is active in us, we are more able to resist these temptations. The life of Christ within us is "dead" when we sin mortally, meaning, we have "lost" eternal life, we are lifeless without Christ. Does this mean Christ no longer keeps us alive? No, we mean that we no longer are effected by the Gospel to convert and repent and transform.

Regards

FK: "What accounts, these? How do you conclude that because they didn't, that they couldn't?"

By the same accounts as those concluding they could but wouldn't.

That's not correct. The Bible says that they could perform miracles. It never says that they lost that ability, which is what you are asserting. The burden is therefore on you to show that they no longer could. That they did not in some cases does not show at all that they could not, so you have not met the test. Because I did not drive to the store today does not mean that I can no longer drive.

Did Christ abolish miracles? I don't think so. [Mark 16:16-18]

That is unknown. One thing we do know, and the Mark passage supports, is that Christ NEVER said or implied that miracles could ever be performed by someone unworthy (whatever small percentage of the clergy is unworthy], yet you would say that they still count.

You are a believer. Do signs follow you? Do you heal the sick? Do you speak in tongues?

Hey, you can't use verses you have already dismissed as forgeries. :)

Why would they keep them when the Lord clearly told them that they will cast demons in His name...?

The verse says cast OUT demons. What's wrong with that?

But Christ commissioned believers to do exactly that, in His name! You have yet to show me some reason why the Apostles stopped healing and why not only the apostolic successors but all the believers can't do it.

The Bible never says they stopped healing, it only says they didn't in some situations. As I'm sure you would agree, the Bible does not tell us everything they did.

As I see it, part of repentance is the opportunity to learn. Since we will never run out of things to learn of God, it is a lifelong process.

Amen. Our repentance is life-long because our sanctification is life-long. But the ability to repent is given by God. Therefore it's not something we do in order to earn salvation because God's mercy is free and unmerited and dependent on Christ's work on the cross alone. However our repentance most assuredly will accompany our salvation.

"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" -- 2 Timothy 2:25

WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
Of Repentance Unto Life

III. Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ, yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

When we say the Spirit "left", that means His influence upon our lives has greatly diminished because of our hardness of heart and desire to fulfill the fleshy ways.

Sounds like a mighty petulant spirit. That doesn't sound like a comforter, but a high-school cheerleader. Somewhat flighty, and almost girlish.

When the Spirit is active in us, we are more able to resist these temptations.

So we decide when the Spirit of God is active in us? Where's the Scripture for that?

If God has determined that we are among His children, then I would assume the Spirit works even harder in us when we are weak and faced with temptations. That's what He promised.

"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." -- 1 Corinthians 10:13

And for good measure, Paul adds...

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry." -- 1 Corinthians 10:14

By the leading of the Holy Spirit, we do.

The burden is therefore on you to show that they no longer could

The burden is to show why would they stop what Christ commanded.

As I'm sure you would agree, the Bible does not tell us everything they did

There is still hope for you of becoming Orthodox. :) But, to give you a protestant answer, the Bible tells us sufficiently what we need to know. In this case, we seem to know two incompatible things: Christ never abolished miracles, but indeed cmmissiones signs and healing, and the Apostles mysteriously stop.

Now, to us Orthodox and Catholic, the external sings becamse sacraments (mysteria) in part because others were using tricks and magic (even raising of the dead!) to show they also had "signs," but none could say they had the "keys" because only those who were ordained by the Apostles did.

FK: "The result would be that those with the least would be encouraged to commit the most crime because the penalties would be less."

Less in what sense? Those who have the least are the ones who commit most crimes anyway. How severe a penalty is depends on an individual's perception. It's relative. If the punishment is meant to discourage then is must be applied proportionally.

Less in terms of jail time. A poor person would have less to lose for attempting crime because he would receive less jail time under your system. A rich person would receive more jail time for the same crime because his liberty would be seen as more "valuable". A variation of this is how organized crime works, which your system promotes. :)

If it is meant to stop (prevent) a criminal from ever hurting the society then death penalty and lifelong incarceration are equal justice for all.

The punishment should be proportional to the crime, not the person.

A $50 parking ticket is meaningless to a millionaire. To someone struggling on a tight budget it can be a disaster. It this case, it may discourage the one struggling and have no effect on the millionaire, yet their misdemeanor is the same.

Sure, for Mickey Mouse violations it does work like that. But it doesn't take long before people face loss of license or jail time. It evens out pretty quickly. Parking tickets are one thing, but even something as small as speeding can get serious if one isn't careful.

The Crosswalk Greek lexicon also lists baptizo as immerse repeatedly. The issue was not various Bibles but the definition of the word. Clearly, the early Church, which used the same language in which the NT was written, took it to mean more than once, as the 1st century Didache testifies. And that same early church, when the Apostles still walked the earth baptizes by triple immersion. I think I will stick with the Apostolic Church and its practice.

We can disagree on Crosswalk vs. Strong's for multiple vs. once, but the Church practice you speak of includes the NON-IMMERSION form of pouring. You and I both know that pouring does even come close to immersion. Immersion is a total covering. Even in the "bapto"-"baptizmo" distinction, both are covered completely. If you want to hang your hat on the EXACT meaning of the Greek word (which is good), then intellectually, you have to throw out pouring. If 99% of the baptisms are of infants, then no Apostolic Church can look me in the eye and say "Well, we just didn't have a container big enough to hold an infant". :)

FK: "In fact, as a Baptist, I do not even scream bloody murder at triple dunking. I wouldn't say "that counts as three baptisms, so it's no good", or something like that."

Based on what rule? One dip contrary to the meaning of the word?

Based on that the Bible is not explicit on the number of dunks. The texts indicates one dunk, but it is not said openly. Earlier, you were talking about what would make the most sense symbolically. One dunk would be symbolic of one death. We were buried with Christ ONCE, not three times. We rose with Christ ONCE, not three times. That's what Paul talks about specifically.

BTW, Christ's own baptism is pointless, since He had nothing to repent of. So, in a way it was an empty ritual.

Christ's baptism was only pointless if water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. My side holds that Christ's baptism was not pointless. John the Baptist had the same concern as you, and Jesus answered him:

Matt 3:15 : Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

Jesus certainly did not think His own baptism was pointless.

The suggestion that the HS descended on Christ at that moment also makes no sense, given that He was never without the Holy Spirit.

The point of that was to PUBLICLY identify Himself with both the Spirit and the Father. All Three were PUBLICLY present at that scene.

God does kill.

Remember the rich man who wanted to build bigger and better barns? God said, "This night is thy soul required of thee."

Remember Jesus' friend, Lazarus, whom Jesus refused to heal so that Lazarus could die and then be resurrected so as to display God's purposes?

Remember Herod who gave a speech but did not honor God, so he was consumed with worms and died?

Remember Ananias & Sophira who lied to the Holy Spirit and were directly killed by God and fear came over the church?

Remember the Corinthians whom Paul says received communion in an unworthy manner and many became sick and died?

Need we speak of the martyrs, who cry to the Lord, but are told to rest until the full number of their brethren slain for the gospel are killed?

Since God has absolutely perfect foreknowledge, and since God is the originating cause of earth, the act of creation of the earth does mean that God created despite knowing that death and tragedy would be one of the by-products.

But if you're saying we can't trust our experience, that it's not real, but an illusion... Then I can just as validly say: "Actually, FK, you experience your free will now as an illusion, as God's will, but that's just your 'experience' of it." And, of course we can't place any reality in that. It might as well all be a dream.

If the only reality for you is God's reality, then you are indeed living in a "dream" (as you say). Do you really think you understand God's reality? Do you think that what is real for God is explainable to your mind? What you are doing is compartmentalizing God's reality into human reality so that you can understand it all. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but you're not the first to try, and the results have always been the same. :).

God gave us the reality He wishes us to experience here on earth. Intermixed with this are SOME Heavenly/spiritual truths, but not all of them. We should be thankful for what He HAS given us, which is, EVERYTHING we need to know.

The parent-child analogy is useful here. With our small children, all of us parents have created specific realities for our children, such as "helping" with a project. The child really believes he has been a great help in the accomplishment, yet the truth is ...... Is this a horrible thing? Is the parent guilty of lying and cheating the little one? No, of course not. It is done out of love and it is a good thing. For the child it is real enough and he actually enjoys the real benefits of the experience (for real). It is the same with God and us.

Your position fails in a performance contradiction: Your experience proves you can't trust your experience.

I do not require God's omniscience to have faith in and appreciate what God has made real for me. God's reality is not my reality.

You left out the flood. But then kosta doesn't believe there was a flood.

You left out Sodom and Gomorrah. But then I trust that kosta doesn't believe in Sodom and Gomorrah.

You left out the murmering Israelites that God killed off. But then I trust that kosta doesn't believe in the Exodus.

Frankly I would have to assume that wherever the Bible speaks of God killing men that kosta assumes that the Bible is in error and that his own pre-conceived theology (which includes his belief that God doesn't kill) is more reliable than scripture.

I guess you can't argue with that kind of reasoning.

Of course our salvation rests on the fact that God provided His own sacrifice.

Isaiah 53:1-12, “Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

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.

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Pick and choose literalists (Pickles) always throw out the inconvenient and suddenly become biblical over things like:

“bring the whole tithe”

“this is my body”

“bring the whole tithe”

“repent and be baptised”

“bring the whole tithe”

“God is love”

“bring the whole tithe”

Those darn Pickles!

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.