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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If our hell is merely a psychic malaise, then so was Christ's separation from God. But He showed us clearly that it wasn't -- it was objective and real and devastating

I never said it wasn't real. You are making things up as you go along. You are putting words in my mouth that I never siad. That's fraud.

Peter Chopelas writes in an article reviewed by Orthodox Church officials in America

The idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church. While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places, and both exist in the presence of God. In fact, nothing exists outside the presence of God.

Note here that God is present but He is experienced by the soul as absent. This experience (state) of God's absence is hell. Ergo, God is, by definition, not present in hell to the soul which is in (a state of) hell.

he than contrasts this with the traditional Western view (since then the Catholics have moved closer to the Patristic view of the 1st millennium):

This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife. In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible, and does not exist in the original languages of the Bible.

The Orthodox understanding of heaven and hell is our state of existence in the presence of God. His love is either experienced as joy in those who love Him and burning in those who hate Him.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God

This is not a new concept

This is not a new interpretation or a secret truth. It has been there all along, held by the Church from the beginning, revealed in the languages of the Scriptures, which were spoken by the Christians of the early church era. This understanding was held by nearly all Christians everywhere for the first 1000 years of the Church's existence, and, except where influence by western theologies, continued to be held by Christians beyond Western Europe and America even up to this day (including the roughly 350 million Orthodox Christians worldwide).

He then goes into very detailed analysis of different words used for hell in both Greek and Hebrew

When you examine in context the source words which are translated as "hell" in English language Bibles the original understanding becomes clear. You will find that "hell" is translated from four different Greek and Hebrew words. These words are not interchangeable in the original language, yet, incredibly, in English-language bibles these words are translated differently in different places to fit the translators' theology (rather than allow the words of scripture to determine their theology). Not only did English translators dump these four very different words into one meaning, they were not even consistent with it and chose to translate these same words with different meanings in different places. It is no wonder that English readers of the Bible are confused.

The article is rather long, going into ancient concepts of afterlife, etc. so I will stop here. I have no problem with your mistaken interpretations. That will be your burden when you answer for your deeds. That you rejected the Church despite the fact that it was given to you on many on occasion is something you will have to explain, for as the Bible says "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."—Mat 12:37

Then the EOC does not know [a Protestant] God

From www.eastern-orthodoxy.com:

If you, dear reader, participate in such discussions and propagate controversies do not expect the blessing of God in your life. As we noticed that some of these also slander monastic communities in the USA, the wrath of God will come upon them. Christ does not treat lightly those who condemn His monastics. Even if some monastic said a wrong word or did something not right, it is for his spiritual father and the Church to examine these issues and not for the internet, where exploitation can happen so easily.

If Christ allowed the Revolution in Russia to happen the very day the take-over of the Holy Mountain was being prepared, what do you think He will do to those who slander the good standing of the Holy Garden of Panagia?

There are countless of stories of the wrath of God against those who slandered Athos and the other blessed monastic communities. And, if one problem does present itself, fervent prayer will always bring the blessed fruits we seek so long as we have love and faith.

Maybe kosta does not know the EOC God.

THE ACT OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF GREECE (1949)

In 1949, the Synod of Metropolitan Matthew of Athens, Archbishop of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, assembled at Keratea in Attica and declared the following condemnation of Freemasonry. [From The Rudder, Orthodox Christian Education Society, Chicago 1983, p. 550]:

Declaration Against Freemasonry - By the True Orthodox Church of Greece

Wherefore clad in the sacred vestments of epitrachilion and omophorion, we say, If any man preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, even though an angel from heaven, let him be anathema (Galatians I8:9). As many as are befitting, that pursue after such a diabolical and lawless employment of Freemasonry, and all they that follow unto their infatuation and unto their error, let them be excommuicated and accursed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. After death, they shall be unpardoned, indissoluble, and bloated. Groaning and trembling, as Cain, shall they be upon the earth (Genesis 4:14). The earth shall cleave and swallow them up, as Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16:31-32). The wrath of God shall be upon their heads, and their portion together with Judas the betrayer. An angel of the Lord will prosecute them with a flaming sword and, unto their life;s termination, they will not know of progress. Let their works and toil be unblessed and let them become a cloud of dust, as of a summer threshing-floor. And all they indeed that shall abide still unto their wickedness will have such a recompense. But as many as shall go out from the midst of them and shall be separated, and having spat out their abominable heresy, and shall go afar off from their accursed infatuation, such kind shall receive the wagers of the zealot Phineas; rather let them be blesed and forgiven by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Only unconfused and undivided Trinity, the One God in nature, and by us His servants."

X Archbishop Matthew of Athens and all Greece (President of the Holy Synod)
X Metropolitan Spyridon II of Trimythus
X Metropolitan Andrew of Patras
X Metropolitan Demetrius of Thessalonica
X Metropolitan Callistus of Corinth
X Archpriest Eugene Tombros (Secretary of the Holy Synod).

Maybe kosta is not familiar with the Greek Orthodox God either?

From www.eastern-orthodixy.com

Heresy and the Wrath of God

The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, lit their censers, laid incense on them and censed the tent of meeting. But they didn't perform the ritual properly; they offered "strange fire" to the Lord, i.e. other than what the Lord expected from them. And the Lord not only rejected their offering but consumed them with fire (Levit. 10:1). Yet the sons of Aaron thought they were doing something pleasing to God. They thought...

Now if the Lord is so wrathful over a matter such as that, how much more so will He be when the contravention of His ordinances has to do with questions of vital importance, such as the faith.

Both Arius and Nestor suffered frightful deaths. In both cases, their bowels burst.

Oh my, God killed them!

I do believe, dosta, that you are misrepresenting the orthodox position on the idea of a wrathful God.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and “gnashing of teeth” for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations. The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God’s presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy. In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the Almighty, the perfect and unchanging God

So then, your concept of heaven and hell is pretty much the same condition as prevails now, with believers and unbelievers working and at leisure together except one understands and enjoys being in the presence of god and the other understanding and not enjoying the presence of god. All other things are equal since they are all in the same physical location.

Do those in torment enjoy the privileges of a renovated heaven and earth? Are they subject to disease and man’s inhumanity while the believers are exempt from these discomforts in their presence? Who enforces peace in a world populated by believers and unbelievers in the presence of God?

Isn’t your god more a God of wrath by subjecting the unbeliever to live in the presence of those enjoying the benefits of salvation? Seems like He’s rubbing salt in the punishment and causing envy and jealousy.

If they are ordained, then how are they ordained? What would happen if you forsook all prayers from this moment forward? Would you still attain Heaven? Would your place in Heaven be diminished?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "how". Prayer itself is in obedience to God, and glorifies Him. Therefore, it is good. All the good I do is God working through me, so in that sense it is ordained, and I benefit. ...... IF we assume that prayer is a significant part of perseverance, then I do not think God would let me give it up permanently. I could choose to stray and become a slacker for a while, but God would either bring me around, or He would take me home before my salvation was lost. And, yes, I would assume that my reward in Heaven would be lesser for the time I gave up praying.

The Calvinistic approach really doesn’t make sense to me since prayer consists of such things as asking for God’s help, and since nothing that we do matters, then what does asking for God’s help accomplish?

As above, it glorifies God as it is in obedience to Him. Prayer is certainly not for the purpose of informing God of our needs (Matt. 6:8). Rather, it is for our benefit as it is communication with God, which He desires. Also, when we pray and ask Him for things we are reminded of our dependence on Him (e.g. God is the only one who can help me out of this mess, etc.), and this helps us to develop a deeper love for Him, all good things. So, a Calvinist would not say that nothing we do matters, it certainly matters to us! :)

There was no salvation prior to Christ. Everyone was subject to death.

If Jesus' sacrifice was not retroactive, then He did not come to save the "whole world", as you believe, but only those who lived during His earthly life or after Him. Why do you think His sacrifice applies to you now, since you didn't exist back then, but it doesn't apply to those who came before Jesus within time? Consider these:

Matt 8:11 : I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 13:27-28 : 27 "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!' 28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

So, are you saying that Jesus did not sacrifice for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets? Is there really more than one way to get to Heaven?

As we noticed that some of these also slander monastic communities in the USA, the wrath of God will come upon them...Maybe kosta does not know the EOC God

Yawn, in all these instances, the expression "the wrath of God" is a figure of speech. It bears no resemblance to the western juridical view. If you bother to study Orthodox theology rather then superficial sloganisms, you will find out that the Orthodox concept of God is that He is unchanging, that He is not loving one minute and angry another.

Orthodoxinfo.com

St. John of Damascus (8th c.) writes:

An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

Nowhere in the entire collection of four lengthy books does St. John of Damascus, the last of the desert fathers, speak of God's wrath the way Protestants do. If some modern-day Orthodox bishops use such terms as "original sin" and "God's wrath" it's because of the influence of the west and because, as you may know, many an American Orthodox is a former Protestant convert and they bring a lot of their Protestant baggage with them (inadvertently, of course).

St. John of Damascus's work deals with the entire Orthodox theology, and the wrath of God is not in it. This doesn't mean we don't suffer for our unrepentant sins, we do, but it's not due to the vindictiveness of God.

Nice of youto take your time to check what i write. It gives me a chance to explain things in greater detail, since you seem to care so much (sarcasm).

But have to disagree with you (again, surprise): I think I know my Orthodox God better than you think. I am actually quite amused with your arrogance to tell me that I don't. It's really pathetic.

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.