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.

[irishtenor]

I don’t use an occasional Pauline verse, I use the Bible. You twist words to mean things other than what they say. Paul never said that works don’t matter. What he said is that works don’t save you. Entirely different.

[MHGinTN]

You have stated a clear exposition of something more reasonable than James offered. Paul states that we are reconciled to God by faithe (action word, not a noun) not by keeping the law or by any works that we may do to add to what Jesus has alreaqdy done.

James, being a very devout Jew and leading the Jerusalem Church for 19 years trying desperately to reconcile Christianity to the Jewish Temple system, James states (2:24) 'Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only'. The preceeding verses James tried to give the examples of Abraham and Rahab, citing deeds (works) as fulfillemnt of their faith, and Jmaes tries to infer that the deeds are the focus of being saved, as if the deeds must show to complete faithe. But what were Rahab's works? Prostitution and lying when she hid the spies.

If you read the OT story, it was Rahab's faithe (action based upon belief in the promise sustained by confidence in the promiser) that when she let down the red cord she would be spared as the city fell.

With Abraham, James claims that Abraham offered his son and that work was counted for him righteousness. Yet in the OT story we have two clues greater than the knife glinting in the air: when Isaac asks where is the sacrifice to be offered, Abraham says 'God will provide'. Then, just before going up the mount to do the sacrifice, Abraham tells the servants to wait at the foot of the mount and 'they' will come back down to them ... even if Abraham had to offer Isaac, Abraham was so given to the 'amen' of God's promise that in Isaac would Abraham's seed be called that Abraham believed God would raise him from the dead if necessary to fulfill His promises. James used a crafty deceptive wording to defend his position that faith plus works was necessary for salvation.

[Alamo-Girl]

I strongly agree with you that the words of God are all of equal value, i.e. a thing is true because God says it.

For the word of the LORD [is] right; and all his works [are done] in truth. He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. – Psalms 33:4-9

Further, I assert that when any of His children do not understand His revelations in Scripture – they should ask Him about it and not lean on their own understanding – a tendency of man which leads to anthropomorphizing God into a small “god” the puny, mortal mind can comprehend:

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. – Proverbs 3:5-6

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matt 22:29

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matt 13:10-13

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. – Isaiah 55:8-11

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. – John 16:12-13

As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. - Mark 5:36

He will guide each of us according to our ability, our need and most especially, His will.

To God be the glory!

[MHGinTN]

No, it is an indication that men do not fully comprehend how God uses His Word to touch the soul, and perhaps even we do not comprehend a greater simplicity that needs no complex institution for the Real Church to live and grow. At one age the Priesthood forwards the purposes of God and builds the body of believers/faithers. In another age the Word made so accessible to men is the tool or system by which even more may be added. The epistle of Jmaes should not be thrown out of the Bible (as Luther suggested), but the irreconcilable messages between Paul and James ought to give us pause to dig deeper without rejecting either.

[irishtenor]

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/13/1085_Does_James_Contradict_Paul/

The above is a site where Reformed doctrine is preached. The man in question, DR. John Piper, is an excellant source of wisdom and insite. He does a much better job than me. Please read it if you can access it.

[irishtenor]

Thank you. To GOD be the glory, forever and ever.

[kosta50]

” Is God, in His divine nature, subject to pleasure?” I would say, according to scripture, the answer is yes. Isaiah 62:5, Zephaniah 3:17, Matt. 3:17...

Anthropomorphisms. Next thing you will tell me that God has hands because the "Bible says so."

[irishtenor]

Didn’t Jesus pick up the little child? How did he do that if he didn’t have hands?

[Alamo-Girl]

You are quite welcome, dear brother in Christ!

Praise God!!!

[kosta50]

Further, I assert that when any of His children do not understand His revelations in Scripture – they should ask Him about it and not lean on their own understanding – a tendency of man which leads to anthropomorphizing God into a small “god” the puny, mortal mind can comprehend

Just make sure you get a positive ID on the voices that come back in your head...

Out of curiosity, how do you know God is speaking back to you? Does the voice say "Alamo-Girl" and you answer "Here I am"? And then He says "I am the Lord your God..."? That's biblical! :)

Or do you kind of "know" (there goes that gnosis again) it's God because...Or does it just "make sense?" Makes sense? Does Incarnation make sense?

Or do you have a secret "handle" when God talks back to you...kind of like a special "tune" that's positively only God's?

Are you sure it's not you talking back to you?

[kosta50]

Didn’t Jesus pick up the little child? How did he do that if he didn’t have hands?

What are you suggesting here, sir? Did the Father become Incarnate? Did the Spirit? Do you suggest then, like the Mormons teach, that God the Father has a body and used to be a man?!?

[fortheDeclaration]

I'd say no, God is not prideful nor subject to passions. Bear in mind these are somewhat terms of art in the theology. It flows from the attributes of God as immutable, unchanging, etc....Therefore, theologically, disagreement over passion in this sense would involve disagreement with the other attributes as well or the logic of the theology it derives from.

Actually, the failure comes in not understanding the nature of passions.

God is not subject to passions, because God is always in control of passions.

God's passions are always controlled by His other attributes, so they respond accordingly.

A passionless God would be a loveless God, which is the opposite of what the Scripture states God is.

Passion is a problem in man because he allows sinful thoughts to control them.

But when the Holy Spirit controls the man, then the passions that are produced are Divine Like, Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, gentleness goodness, meekness, faith, temperance.

Immutability does not move that God is either immovable or unfeeling, only that He never contradicts or violates any of His perfect attributes.

Thus, God's feelings are always perfect as well.

A God without passion (feeling) is not the God of the Bible.

[fortheDeclaration]

I do not think that the reply I say 'amen' to was addressed to the Roman Catholics.

They, were I believe, addressed to someone of the Greek Orthodox faith.

I have never thought that the Roman Catholics had any problem with ascribing passions to God.

[Alamo-Girl]

God is not "there" as in returning a phone call. When I pray, He responds directly and personally "here" in me.

IOW, His Spirit dwells in me and has for nearly a half century.

It's not that I know Him but rather that He knows me.

There is no need for a Q&A, Litmus Test or Identification - or a "Here I am" with Him replying "I am the Lord your God..."

All of that has changed since Pentecost (emphasis mine:)

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit...For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his... – Romans 8

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. – John 15:4-5

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. II Cor 2:6-16

To God be the glory!

[fortheDeclaration]

By this reckoning, true Love is what God IS (and God chooses to be what He is),

God does not choose to be what He is, He is what He is because He is God.

Thus, God doesn't choose to be Love, God is Love.

What God does choose to do is to share His Love with sinful creatures who don't deserve it.

That is what John 3:16 is speaking of.

[fortheDeclaration]

God died? You mean that for 2 1/2 days the Universe was without God?

God was never dead since He cannot die, but you will be one day and you will be judged by Him,

and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement (Heb.9:27)

The humanity of Christ died and was buried and rose again on the third day.(1Cor.15:3-4)

Christ had two natures, not just one, He was God in the flesh (1Ti.3:16)

[Seven_0]

You have stated a clear exposition of something more reasonable than James offered. Paul states that we are reconciled to God by faith (action word, not a noun) not by keeping the law or by any works that we may do to add to what Jesus has already done.

Note the difference between the tone of Paul’s letters and the Catholic epistles.(Peter, James, John and Jude) Paul takes us into the sanctuary where we stand before God (Leviticus) The Catholic epistles take us into the world (into the desert) where we stand before men.

Matt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

When we stand before God the emphasis in on grace. When we stand before men, the emphasis is on works

We cannot impress God. Our light is like the light of a candle, which cast a shadow in the sunlight.

Seven

[fortheDeclaration]

I would categorize love as a decision. Those who would treat it as an emotion - as a result of something, rather than as a consciously made decision are often disappointed in marriage, especially.

God's Love is benevolence, that is, it always seeks the best for others.

It's nature is to give, not to take.

It is not responding to anything such as is often the case of love between a man and woman.

it is always initiating, seeking to do good and show affection.

Anger and affection are emotions, not love.

Well, God certainly states that He has both in the Scriptures.

For God, affection is (as it is with man) a corollary of Love.

[fortheDeclaration]

God is God; He may be beyond emotions, I certainly don’t know. Are you implying that a member of the Godhead can have a differing opinion, thought, emotion or outlook from another of the Godhead?

Now, why would I imply that?

Since all three Persons share equally of the same Divine Essence, they are always co-equal and totally perfect.

God can never be anything less then perfect.

God's emotions only differ from man in their quality, they are always perfect as well.

Man can have a relationship with God because like God man is a person with intellect, sensibilty and will.

We differ in degree of perfection in those attributes, but not in kind.

Each member of the Trinity is a perfect Person, thus, each of those qualites will be perfect and infinite in their scope.

Since man is a created being, he will always be limited, but can still communicate with and have a relationship with God his creator

[D-fendr]

thanks for your reply.

A passionless God would be a loveless God, which is the opposite of what the Scripture states God is.

I think it more accurate to say God is love according to the scriptures. If we say God sometimes loves and sometimes hates, we don't have an unchanging God which would violate other scriptures specifically and also those attesting to God's perfection and infiniteness.

Immutability does not [mean] that God is either immovable or unfeeling, only that He never contradicts or violates any of His perfect attributes.

Immutable means unchanging and incapable of being changed. Unless God is always angry/pleased, loving/hating, etc. all at the same time, how do see an unchanging God having these differing emotions? Particularly when He is outside time and change?