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.

You mean that you don’t like:

The Theory of Predestination post prœvisa merita

This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales “as the truer and more attractive opinion”, has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prœvisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God’s salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:8), who knows that there “is laid up” (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven “a crown of justice”, which “the just judge will render” (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat” etc. As the “possessing” of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the “preparation” of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat” etc. For it is evident that the “everlasting fire of hell” can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits.

We Catholics do not support double predestination, only predestination to Heaven. Certainly Paul, Mary and John the Baptist were chosen before they were born. And no, we don’t believe that God makes exceptions either. God is impartial.

Well, then, let’s pull up a seat and enjoy the show. The modern KJV edition that you read from is probably not the 1611. It’s probably the Blayney edition of 1769. The 1611 edition of the KJV underwent various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769. Which version of the KJV is not in error?

Ho hum, nothing new here.

The changes that the 1611 between then and the 1769 were simply updates in spelling and sentence punctuation.

The actual text of the 1611 was not changed, and every edition reads exactly as the rest do.

Also, if one claims the original 1611 KJV is the only inspired, infallible Word of God, he is claiming that Purgatory is true, since the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version and it teaches Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:45). Are you prepared to enter Purgatory at the end of your life, if you are judged worthy of everlasting life in Heaven?

Ho hum.

The original 1611 had the Apocrypha in the middle of the Bible, as not it was not considered part of the Inspired Canon of Scripture.

Apocrypha was put in for reference purposes only, unlike how it is put into the RC bibles, which have the books dispersed throughout the Old Testament Canon.

So, the King James translators (no Protestant's did) ever regarded the Apocrypha as equal to the Canon for doctrinal purposes and it was not considered part of the Inspired Canon.

Jude 25: “To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen” (NIV). “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen” (KJV). John 14:14: “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (NIV). “If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (KJV).

And the problem with the two King James verses above are what?

a comparison between the KJV and Young’s Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads: “The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation” (KJV). “. . . who declare to us a way of salvation” (Young’s Literal). Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield “the way of salvation.” Young’s Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates — a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR — “a way of salvation.”

Gee, the translators of the Douey-Rheims 1582 had the reading just as the King James did, with 'the way of salvation'

Now, translators have the freedom to translate sentences that do not have definite article based on the context of the passage and the need for correct English.

To prove that the King James is incorrect, you have to prove that a particular verse cannot be translated as it was, not that some commenter disagreed with how it was translated.

Dr. Robert Young wrote in the preface to the revised edition of his translation of the Bible: “For example, in Mat. 2. 4, Herod is represented as enquiring “where Christ” should be born. But “Christ” is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James’ Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where “the Christ” should be born. Herod knew of “the Christ,” the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original”

Once again the Roman Catholic Douey-Rheims has the same reading as the King James, as does the Geneva, the Great Bible, and Tyndale, and the modern KJ21, with no article before Christ.

So, again, translators have to use their own judgment regarding articles and when to translate them and not to.

There is no hard and fast rule regarding their translation.

Also note Jn. 3:16 in Youngs, regarding the continuous tense for believe: “For God did so love the world, that His son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.” This translation, with the verb tenses, opens up the clear meanings of Scripture, hidden to people who only read the KJV.

LOL!

A person couldn't even understand what that passage said!

You Interlinear guys crack me up!

The Roman Catholic NAB, reads, For God so loved the world that he gave his Son [left out begotten], so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life

Same tense as the King James translators, and every English translation of that verse.

A translation is not an interlinear.

Another verse from the 1611 edition of the KJV is Rev 21:8. Please note how hard it is to read:

Hard to read, after what you tried to give us with Jn.3:16!

“But the feareful, and vnbeleeuing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all lyars, shall haue their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death.”

And what is the problem with this verse?

In our personal library, we have a book written by Ralph Earle titled, Word Meanings in the New Testament, published by Baker Book House. He comments on the words “now full” as used in Mark 4:37 of the KJV: “The Greek does not have the aorist tense, suggesting completed action (see the Blass-Debrunner Grammar), but the present infinitive of continuing action. So a better translation is ‘already filling up’ (NASB) or ‘nearly swamped’ (NIV). If the boat had been ‘now full’ (KJV), it would have been at the bottom of the lake!” (p. 37). Earle also comments on the KJV rendering in Romans 8:16 of “itself” (on page 179):

Well, all of the pre-1611 translations, including the Douey-Rheims had filled, as does the modern KJ21.

So, it can be translated that way and

Maybe the boat should have sunk but didn't because God would not allow it to.

“The KJV reads: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ The RSV changes ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ Orthodox Christianity has always held to the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Modern liberalism has frequently denied both. The KJV rendering here would seem to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, calling Him an ‘it.’ Even if one is reading the KJV in the pulpit he should always change ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ By doing so we affirm our faith in the Holy Spirit, not as an impersonal influence, but as a living Person who dwells in our hearts.

I never change a word of the King James when I am in the pulpit.

The problems people have with it is due to their own ignorance of the Original languages, the English or theology.

Now, after running to the Greek to change the King James translation, the 'scholars' then just ignore the Greek word 'auto' which is in the neuter gender.

The translation of the word 'itself' doesn't attack the person of the Holy Spirit at all.

When someone calls your house and you are busy, you yell to the person taking the call, 'who is it'.

Does that mean you think that the person calling is a thing?

The King James translators correctly translated the neuter pronoun, as does Webster, and Darby in their translations, and so does the modern KJ21.

and there are a bunch of other errors noted in more detail at

Well, you haven't proven a single one.

There were some verses that I wasn't sure what the problem was, such as Jude 25 and Jn.14:14, and Rev. 21:8, so you can post them to me as well.

So, once again, to prove an error you have to prove that the verse cannot be translated as the King James did, not that you don't like how it is translated or that there is an alternative way to translate it.

FK: "I was asking you if you thought that the time of death for most/all people was random."

It could be. That changes nothing as far as your ultimate state is concerned, does it? So, to claim that somehow your moment of death is ordained is a conjecture. We could say that God knows when it will be, but that the actual cause may be circumstantial.

It surely could change our ultimate state if it is possible that our physical deaths are random. The reason is that it would mean that the wonderful scripture that Dr. E. posted in her 6,066 would have to be all WRONG! :) (Job 14:5, Psalm 139:16, Acts 17:26, etc.) If those scriptures are wrong, then any scriptures can be wrong, and Christianity itself falls by default. No group of men could hold it together if their authorizing statute was just as suspect as the rest of scripture.

FK: "Ah, so parents make us."

Yes, according to the laws of nature God created. Is God still creating or did He finish the job the first time? Yes, we know mountains erode and glaciers carve the landscape. Is that God doing it or the laws of nature playing themselves out?

Of course God is still creating. Do you believe He operates at all within time, or does He just sit back and watch the show? If He does anything within time, then He also creates within time. You have already been showed the verses. Are ALL of them wrong? :) Kosta, I know you are not a Deist, but what do you make of this quote from John Orr (1934) "English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits."? (This is from the Wiki entry on Deism):

Both [theists and Deists] asserted belief in one supreme God, the Creator.... and agreed that God is personal and distinct from the world. But the theist taught that god remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.

I mean, does this sound familiar? :)

[FK quoting:] John 11:35 Jesus wept. 36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"

I hope you understand that this doesn't make any sense (just one of verses!). He knew that He would raise Lazarus, so why would He be weeping over him? Just because everyone else was crying?

Did Jesus really experience what it was to be human?:

Heb 2:16-18 : 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Jesus experienced the loss of His friend, just as we do. It is more evidence that He understands all of our problems COMPLETELY, and is able to help us in every circumstance. ...... I also note that the verse you say makes no sense is a Gospel verse. :)

--------------------

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. [Rom 8-28]

This suggests that God is not impartial and that He can be swayed by those who love Him because they love Him! It also asserts that only the good have been called to His purpose. Does that mean that Judas, Pharaoh and other popular biblical villains have bypassed His purpose and were acting on their own, and contrary to His will? Otherwise they need "credit" too because without the villains the God of the Reformed created His plan would "stuck."

I don't see how any of that follows from the verse. It doesn't say that God is swayed, it states the fact that God works in ALL things for the good of His children. That is, He is not a part-timer, but rather a full-time God. He is active rather than passive. Who does He do this good for? Those He has called according to His purpose. God is in full control.

There is NO assertion at all that only the good have been called. You have it backwards. Only sinners are called. EVER. ...... None of the Biblical villains you mention have bypassed God's purpose. God has used them FOR His purpose. They deserve no credit because they did nothing in obedience to God. They just followed their own fallen natures. What credit is deserving for that?

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.