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.

Wow, we’re even closer than I dared to hope.

A couple of teeeeeeeeeny little points. If it is man’s responsibility to glorify God, then he must do it out of his own volition. A mother cannot cause a child to love her. But I think it might be interesting to explore the idea of the amount or extent of control that would be analogous to the Reformed view of God’s control of humanity.

If you’re ever up this way, I’ll buy you a large Guinness.

Well, I am a private citizen and I can have opinions. I do not present myself as an official of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor do I claim that my views represent official teachings of the Church. If I state soemthing that is indeed doctrine, then I make sure I let everyone know (usually I supply a link). But when asked, I always defer to the teahcings of the Curch of course. I am still learning. Are you?

But I am somewhat puzzled that you have a "church" that you follow, as an organization. This really flies in the face of all the criticisms leveled by your fellow churehc members and other Protestants at Orthodox and Catholic members here that we follow "trandistions of men."

I do blame the Reformers for (and it is entirely my responsibility that I was not clear enough) creating a mindset that one could set up one’s own religion for one’s own reasons and that it could be done fairly easily, especially as new ones kept getting created. It became easier and easier to do.

Well, no Reformer would say that the first were setting up a new religion. That only comes from critics. So, Reformers are not responsible for that. No Reformer ever encouraged anyone to set up his own religion. We just encouraged everyone to come to Christianity. But from what you go on to say, we may be using the word "religion" differently. How would you distinguish "a faith" from "a religion"?

As for who is responsible for the Reformation, I suppose the Apostolics would blame the Reformers, and the Reformers would praise God.

Do the EO, RCC and "reformed" worship the same God?...

EOs and RCs definitely yes. Protestants, some appear to, but some defnitely do not.

This scenario is why Jesus came to make ALL religion on this planet obsolete

Where does it say that?

And WHY he said, "Where ever two or three meet together in my name there am I in their midst"..

He meant real Christians. Not people with bizarre beliefs, members of one-man "churches" and what not.

How does your prayer result in communication but is not worthy of anything else?

I am not sure of what other worth you are referring to. I only know that my prayers do not change God's mind, since I do not have power to compel or convince God. I see Him as being above that.

What does the communication consist of?

Usually, improvised prayer from the heart. I like to think that I have the type of relationship with God such that I can tell Him anything, so I do.

Do you not participate in prayer chains? Do you not ask God to do this, to help you with that, or to alleviate the other?

Sure I do, all the time. But this is no waste of time. These prayers themselves were just as ordained as the thing sought for being granted, or not. I don't know what God's plan is going to be on a given future matter, so I should pray about everything. The Bible says to. The Bible says that prayer is efficacious, and it is, since it is all part of the process of God's plan being implemented. God changed my heart to want to follow Him. The Bible says that to follow Him is to pray, so I want to pray.

Give us this day our daily bread: a little asking - now what use is that?

It reminds us of our dependence on Him ahead of anyone or anything else.

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us - a promise to do, to act, and further asking Him to grant us something - of what use is that?

Again, it is a reminder to us what He does for us, and what He wants us to do.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. - more asking. This is not communication only, this is worship and asking Him to help us. I don’t believe that this sits very comfortably with Calvin’s beliefs.

Why in the world would Calvin have any problem with worship and asking God for things? It's all through the Bible. God wants us to worship and ask Him for things. We believe that all prayer pleasing to God GLORIFIES God. It is our purpose, as you said so well earlier. Therefore, it is useful regardless of the fact that we are not changing God's mind.

Greater than I have strayed from the faith. If they had been instructed and corrected, they might not have descended into outright heresy

The greatest fathers of the Church (+Greogry of Nyssa comes to mind; a student of Origen, for while he taught universal salvation!). What the fathers did was to express their religious opinions (in Greek theologoumenna), or hypothesis in western parlance.

These did not become Church "doctrine" until they were accepted by the whole Church in Ecumenical Councils. There as a reason for those blessed Councils: men tend to speculate, even when they believe they are being objective.

Thus, checks and balances had to exist, lest even the greatest minds of the church succumb to heresy.

That's why we defer to the Church, never assuming that we are better or smarter than 2,000 years of collective wisdom, spirituality and knowledge of the Church.

I am still learning. Are you?

Absolutely, but I am a purist in that I like the unaltered version rather than opinions. Just my style of learning, I guess.

But I am somewhat puzzled that you have a "church" that you follow, as an organization.

I don't follow a just-me-and-my-bible religion. I am a church member and took an oath. As a member of the OPC, I find comfort that other saints have come before me; I don't need to blaze new trails. I am a member of a church that has creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Large and Small Catechism, the Book of Church Order, and theological books written by scholars much smarter than I am. However, the source of all OPC "tradition" is the written word of God and the doctrines are biblically referenced. There is no oral tradition and the doctrines are not in flux.

I am Orthodox, kosta. ;)

You keep using this “Robot/Slave” phrase. Let me see if i can dispell that for you.

The only people to truly have free will are those whom God has chosen for his own. In this I mean that ONLY a child of God can choose to please God. Therefore, a child of God has the choice to please God by being obedient or displeasing him by being disobedient.

The man who is not a child of God cannot please God. His choices are limited to 1. sin, or 2. not sin. He does not have the will to please God by being obedient. He doesn’t have the ABILITY to please God, because he does not have God in him.

So, the only ones who have free will are the ones you cal robots and slaves.

Although maybe Scripture is "vague" for those who come to it veiled by vain repetitions and the traditions of men which could obscure most anything

LOL!

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known —I Cor 13:12

Can you describe love Dr. E? Can you color it? Can you weigh it? Does it have a shape? Can you buy it? How does one get it? How do you know what love is when you do get it?

We cannot define any of this. We can only give our own 'experience" and opinion about it. Invariably, it will be different from the person next to you. So, don't tell me that goodness and truth are black-and-white or clear-cut biblical concepts that everyone knows when you know darn well that they are not and that any attempt to prove it by words would invariably prove that each and every human beings has a different definition of these "clear-cut" and "black-and-white" sweeping generalizations!

[.. This scenario is why Jesus came to make ALL religion on this planet obsolete / Where does it say that? ..]

There is no access to the "Father"(therefore God) except through Jesus the Christ or Messiah.. and the limitations He(jesus) requires.. "You MUST be born again"<<-Jesus.. and other limitations..

[.. And WHY he said, "Where ever two or three meet together in my name there am I in their midst".. / He meant real Christians. Not people with bizarre beliefs, members of one-man "churches" and what not. ..]

What is a "real" christian?...
Does the RCC or EO have any bizarre beliefs?...
What about two man churchs?..

Absolutely, but I am a purist in that I like the unaltered version rather than opinions.

Unaltered? You have originals?

I don't follow a just-me-and-my-bible religion. I am a church member and took an oath

Sounds Catholic to me! :)

As a member of the OPC, I find comfort that other saints have come before me; I don't need to blaze new trails

Now you are sounding patristic! :)

I am a member of a church that has creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, Large and Small Catechism, the Book of Church Order, and theological books written by scholars much smarter than I am

I will give you a little secret: the Church had the Creed centuries before your "saints" blazed new trails...and they had books written by people who walked with the apostles and were much smarter than all of us, including the Calvinist scholars.

However, the source of all OPC "tradition" is the written word of God and the doctrines are biblically referenced

Am I supposed to understand that as a veiled affront on the Church as somehow "not" being biblically referenced? If so, you are embarrassing yourself.

There is no oral tradition and the doctrines are not in flux

There is no flux. Eastern Orthodoxy is a living fossil of the early church. Our Divine liturgy used most of the year is 1,600 years old. It is a shorter version of the liturgical service served on fourteen special occasions during the year, which predates this one by at least another 100 years. And both are but slight variation of the earliest liturgy of St. James (the Just) of Jerusalem.

What the Patristic wrote, and how we celebrated the Eucharist at the end of the 1st and beginning of the second centuries, is what is still taught and practiced to this date in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Where is the flux?

I am Orthodox, kosta. ;)

LOL! <

Unaltered?
I mean that when I am reading what someone is posting, I am looking for their profession to line up with their professed church's teaching. If someone is EO, then I hope that their posts are in line with EO teaching, etc. rather than all over the map.

Am I supposed to understand that as a veiled affront on the Church as somehow "not" being biblically referenced? If so, you are embarrassing yourself.
I'm not embarassed. :)
I have a copy of the RCC catechism and some of the doctrines are not biblically referenced.

a living fossil
You mean you don't sing new choruses and jingles?

I'm liking the background notion of freedom as the ability to choose the good. But where it gets hard to distinguish from "robot" is when one asks whether the one who has been given by God the freedom to choose the good can choose to turn away from God.

And one possible answer is that no one who has been given that freedom ever actually does turn away from God. So the "choice" exists in principle but is never actually made. But there would seem to be some Pauline passages which would suggest that it's a real possibility, since he seems to expend some rhetorical energy urging people NOT to make that choice.

[blows whistle - throws yellow flag]

To parse used to mean to explain the syntax and form of a word in a sentence. When in Latin class a million years ago I was told to parse a word I had to say what form it was and how its role in the sentence related to the from.

If I was told to parse "him" in "Give him the ball," I would say it was the objective form, third person singular pronoun, masculine, and objective because it is the indirect object of the verb "give". Similarly, told to parse "nobis" in "Dona nobis pacem", I'd say it was the first person pronoun, plural, dative, dative because it's the indirect object of the imperative verb "dona".

Parsing is all about what words mean in their form and context and how they function in a sentence.

To prevaricate is to equivocate, to straddle with words so that what one says can be taken one way or another, so to suggest the false, to lie. But it's really a kind of lying. Parsing is the way we pierce through and expose prevarication.

This may be playing games, but to the extent that it is, it is not parsing.

/pedantic rant off.

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.