Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

[annalex]

I would say that we lose the fellowship of the Holy Spirit when we commit a mortal sin, and we regain it when we are absolved from that sin. I would not say that the Holy Spirit is like food or drink or clothing literally, as it is a supernatural presence.

[MarkBsnr]

I have a Palm Pilot and program in all kinds of recurring appointments and tasks and reminders. It would do my ego absolutely no good whatsoever to have a little reminder every hour or every day or so to tell me how wonderful I am.

A robot slave wife, appealing as it is on one level, would rapidly become repugnant.

I really wonder at the mindset of a theological thug who would postulate such a thing, and then wonder even more at others who would find it attractive.

[MarkBsnr]

Darn. I thought we had won another convert over by our wit, our knowledge and our incredible good looks.

[Seven_0]

O.K.. What is Life?.. Biologists say life is merely living DNA..

I'll keep that in mind as I try to come up with a definition of life.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

These people are referred to as dead before they go through the second death.

Seven.

[MarkBsnr]

The Church does not restrict salvation. It is not up to her to do so or no.

We received the rules and the process from Jesus Christ Himself.

Rom 8:

28
We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.
29
For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
30
And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.

These verses outline the Christian vocation as it was designed by God: to be conformed to the image of his Son, who is to be the firstborn among many brothers (Romans 8:29). God’s redemptive action on behalf of the believers has been in process before the beginning of the world. Those whom God chooses are those he foreknew (Romans 8:29) or elected. Those who are called (Romans 8:30) are predestined or predetermined. These expressions do not mean that God is arbitrary. Rather, Paul uses them to emphasize the thought and care that God has taken for the Christian’s salvation.

Also: We know that all things work for good for those who love God: a few ancient authorities have God as the subject of the verb, and some translators render: “We know that God makes everything work for good for those who love God. . . .”

Revelation 7:

4
I heard the number of those who had been marked with the seal, one hundred and forty-four thousand marked from every tribe of the Israelites:
5
twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand from the tribe of Reuben, twelve thousand from the tribe of Gad,
6
twelve thousand from the tribe of Asher, twelve thousand from the tribe of Naphtali, twelve thousand from the tribe of Manasseh,
7
twelve thousand from the tribe of Simeon, twelve thousand from the tribe of Levi, twelve thousand from the tribe of Issachar,
8
twelve thousand from the tribe of Zebulun, twelve thousand from the tribe of Joseph, and twelve thousand were marked from the tribe of Benjamin.
9
After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands.
10
They cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation comes from our God, who is seated on the throne, and from the Lamb.”

---

I too believe in the inclusivity of God. Only those who are determined to go to hell will.

[MarkBsnr]

It is unlikely that we can fully conceive of hell any more than we can conceive of Heaven, at least not until we experience them.

[hosepipe]

[.. I would say that we lose the fellowship of the Holy Spirit when we commit a mortal sin ..]

IF... thinking lustfully is literally as bad as commiting lust.. what then is a mortal sin?.. or venal sin for that matter..

[MarkBsnr]

Not the Church. Jesus Christ instructed Peter and the Apostles. If you have a problem with the forgiveness of sin by the ordained, you’ll have to take it up with Him. We’re following His instructions, not Calvin’s or anybody else’s.

[hosepipe]

[.. These people are referred to as dead before they go through the second death. ..]

O.K.. I'll ask you again what is LIFE?..
A living human is alive.. What is LIFE..
A dead human is dead..... What is death?..

But What is life is what I asked you?..
Dead is merely not being alive.. I know that already..

[hosepipe]

[.. It is unlikely that we can fully conceive of hell any more than we can conceive of Heaven, at least not until we experience them. ..]

I agree.. then a lake of fire then, "could be" a metaphor of "something else".. i.e. less anthropomorphic than a lake of fire but even more "real"..

[jo kus]

OK, and this does lead me to ask what happens if the mortal sin is not taken care of, and the person dies and goes to hell. What happens to the indwelling Spirit in that case?

We presume that the indwelling Spirit is not there, since a person who does not possess Christ is without life (1 john 5:`12) - thus, a deadly sin means one has "killed" that life within them. One without life (spiritual) is without Christ, and thus, without the Spirit.

Regards

[jo kus]

The salvation model is indeed the same, but the Chruch was not there for the Old Testament folk as an ordinary means of grace.

The Old Testament rituals were a shadow of the good things to come...Same model, more catholic (univerally applied to all men, not just Jews), perfect sacrifice, eternally sufficient for all men. The New Covenant rituals replace the OT rituals (sacraments) - a perfection of what the OT rituals once pointed to.

Regards

[MarkBsnr]

Okay, so what if we don’t?

If you, F-K have the indwelling knowledge that you are of the elect and you are going to get to Heaven and there’s nothing that anyone can do about it, what if you don’t go and evangelize? What if you don’t do as you are commanded?

Actually, you don’t, not entirely, because you are in a state of sin right now, just as I and every other human is.

[MarkBsnr]

Make sure that He has his suitcase with him.

If you’re bound and determined to go to hell, then your free will accomodate you.

[annalex]

Mortal sin is an act, inaction, speech, or thought done knowing that it offends God with full cooperation of the will. As Wikipedia puts it,

In all Catholic moral theology, a mortal sin, as distinct from a venial sin, must meet all of the following conditions:

• its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;
• it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
• it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

  (Mortal sin)

When ther is an offense but it is insignificant, or unintended, or done out of ignorance, then the sin is venial.

Human physiology provides plenty of examples of venial sin. Unintended exposure to nudity, for example, leads to arousal which is morally neutral, -- it simply indicates one has a healthy libido. Lustful thoughts entertained following the arousal might be hard to control, that is venial sin. Taking a decision to seek out more of such scenes in order to experience more lustful thoughts becomes mortal sin, because now a decision has been freely made.

[Seven_0]

What is death?..

Good question. You will note that in all the resurrections in scripture, no one gave testimony of what it was like to die or be dead. I believe that it is purposely shrouded in mystery to illustrate what Christ would go through at the cross. It was outside of his experience both as man and as God. As for what is life? You and I can both draw from the same pool of knowledge for a definition

Dead is merely not being alive.. I know that already..

Dead implies that something was alive first. You cannot have a dead rock. This is why birth must come before death and death must come before resurrection. This does not bode well for those who say that we are spiritually dead before we are born again.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." -- 1 Peter 2:15-16

Precious instruction. Food for my thirsty soul.

Amen. What greater encouragement is there than to know our productive lives are the result of His grace?

WHATE'ER MY GOD ORDAINS IS RIGHT

[hosepipe]

I wonder if dividing sin into category's defeats the purpose of the concept and is itself a sin?..
Since you MUST be perfect as you're father in heaven is perfect.. as it is written..
Perfection allows ZERO sin..

You know, prevarication of the ministry of Christ..

[Dr. Eckleburg]

OK, and this does lead me to ask what happens if the mortal sin is not taken care of, and the person dies and goes to hell. What happens to the indwelling Spirit in that case?

What a great question. And of course, there is no answer for it because the premise is all wrong.

If the Holy Spirit indwells a man, that man will, at a time of God's choosing, be surely brought home. We have His promise for that.

"...even to morrow the LORD will shew who are His, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him." -- Numbers 16:5

[hosepipe]

[.. This is why birth must come before death and death must come before resurrection. This does not bode well for those who say that we are spiritually dead before we are born again. ..]

Life in the body vs. life in the spirit..
"Life" could be the ultimate metaphor.. What is life?..
Is a carrot dead when we eat it or was it ever "alive" at all?..
Spiritually dead could also be a metaphor.. as is born again..
To explain things too deep for us to understand now..