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.

The only ‘badness’ that I can see about the robot slave theory is that it goes against so much of Scripture.

I agree, and am glad that Reformers do not believe in such a thing. The robot slave theory, as argued, was wholly invented by our critics and thrust upon us against our free wills. :) We reject it. Our position is that God is sovereign and in full control of everything. Within that dynamic we experience the freedom to sin, and to do good in God's eyes once saved. These experiences are fully real.

However, this idea has somehow been translated into the aforementioned theory. I am not sure whether this is done in order to persuade lurkers, or whether it is an instinctual reaction to any thought of man not being in control of his own destiny. The natural state of all of us at birth is to want to be in full control. So, theology developed that promoted man being in (ultimate) control, including a small group of elite who were in "super control". That is, they granted themselves the power to stand in God's place and speak for Him with the force of law (Latin).

I at least partially understand the need that this fills for a huge number of Christians. On the one hand one can be a good Christian, and on the other he can remain in control and have eternal self determination. I just don't think that's what the Bible teaches. :)

I think you failed to grasp that I was being somewhat sarcastic .Also, If you fully understand Augustine or any of the other Saints for that matter, you would understand that it is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that helped them GROW in faith.( I can easily pull up thousands of writings to back this up)

Dear Harley, Catholic’s do NOT deny that Faith is a gift.
We understand that FAITH is a gift given to those who are humble enough to freely accept it.

I’ll post this again for you....

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PX.HTM

The freedom of faith

160 To be human, “man’s response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. the act of faith is of its very nature a free act.”39 “God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus.”40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. “For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom... grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself.

And what about the rabbis and their vowells? Do you just shrug your shoulder when reading the OT and say "sorry they failed?"

Why should I shrug my shoulders? I believe the word of God is alive today, infallible and inerrorant, and has been perserved for our use. I have no questions of anyone failing in their responsibility to preserve the text for I believe that God has preserved it.

OTOH, you have repeatedly made comments that this or that is wrong, the original manuscript doesn't exist so we don't know what it really said, we don't know who were the authors and people added all sorts of things. Have I've missed anything? Well what type of religion does that create when you have no guidelines except what someone has told you? Many people believed Jim Jones as they drank the punch. If you can't have faith that God preserved the scriptures, then how can you have faith in anything else?

Thanks for your reply. I think it's very creative.

Thanks. ......... I think. :)

How do you read these similar verses:

Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Here is the basic context of the passage:

Matt 18:1-4 : 1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

While Jesus knew immediately that their question was idiotic, He apparently believed that it was honest, so He gave them a straightforward answer. Jesus said, in essence, that Godly humility (and by extension recognition of God's sovereignty and Lordship) will result in going to Heaven. We are to have a child-like faith. However, by implication, those who are not humble by submitting to God will not even make it to Heaven.

The child was a tool used by Jesus to make a point. We should not be thinking of our ambitions, but rather on being loyal and humble servants to Him.

Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

(Matt. 18:10) Again this can apply literally to believing children, or to all Christians generally who have child-like faith. We should treat each other well, as the angels who minister to us do (Heb. 1:14).

Paul is saying retribution is God's domain and not ours

Now, Christians of all times have given only lip service to this idea, haven't they? In fact, those who advocate such a thing are often refrered to as Democrats!

And He most certainly will -- by "heaping holes of fire on their heads."

If they desrerve it in God's eyes! As it is suggested in various places in the Bible, God sees things differently then we do.

St. Paul is saying for us not to return evil for evil, asnd to let God decide if those who trespass agianst us need to have hot coals poured on their heads. But, of course, Paul is presenting an angry wrathful God of the Old Testament. The fire and brimstone God of the Protestant persuasion that is the root cause of European atheism, and elsewhere.

I have no questions of anyone failing in their responsibility to preserve the text for I believe that God has preserved it.

Don't let the facts pluck your head out of the sand. You can convince yourself that there is a unicorn on Neptune with equal ease.

The Bible is preserved not in the literal sense but in the spiritual sense; in its overall message of love. It teaches us that mercy is better than vengeance; that we should not return evil with evil. It teaches us to forgive if we expect forgiveness. That is the thread that stretches throughout the Gospels and that is what we are looking for in the rest of the Bible.

However, facts show that the bible has been corrupted by human hands, whether you want to believe it or not. Some parts of the Bible show that the Jews did not really receive full revelation that the law and prophets were to be understood as love.

But if you want to believe the earth is flat, oh well, that's fine too.

Paul is saying retribution is God's domain and not ours. And because all things work for the good of those who love Him, God's retribution will make even more evident the depths of the sin of our persecutors by comparison.

Exactly!

The reason people misunderstand the verse is because they impose their own theology on it and ignore what the verse actually says.

Compare it to what James writes,

For he shall have judgement without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; (Ja.2:13)

If you want mercy, you had better show it, so by showing mercy to those who don't deserve it, we receive it, and they receive the fruit of their own cruel unforgiving acts.

Just as is depicted in the parable of the King who forgave the great debt, and the one forgiven would not forgive the little debt owed to him. (Mt.18:23-35)

But the point is: everything we do is not good, even after we are born in the Spirit. You seem to suggest that those who have accepted Christ can do no wrong and, just because they cry out Jesus, Jesus, they will not be judged for their wrongdoings because the blood of Christ washed away their sins. The blood of Christ made it possible for all men to be saved by forgiving us our sins if we sin no more (cf John 8:11). Christians have not been given an open credit account to, as Luther says, "sin boldly" all you want. That is the heart of Protestant heresy based on distorted interpretation of Paul's Epistles, and not on what Christ said.

Oh, kosta, kosta, kosta – stop worrying and start living.

I wonder how much life has been lost to dark imaginings.

Truly, as long as we are anchored to the flesh we will sin. Our challenge after becoming reborn in Him is to follow Him, to stay in His Light. (Romans 8)

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - I John 1:5-10

Truly, every good thing (fruit, works) that comes from our lives after we have been reborn in Him, is His doing and to His glory, not ours. That is why it will survive the test:

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. – I Cor 3:13-15

Only God is good. Only Him.

The things we do on our own accord will not survive – even though we will.

All of the above applies to God’s own adopted children, those who have been reborn by the Spirit. The others are destined to the second death (Revelation 20.)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. – John 3:5-6

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 8:9

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Col 3:3

BTW, I eschew all of the doctrines and traditions of men – including Luther's. The whole idea of a reborn adopted child of God Almighty sinning ”boldly” is absurd on the face.

Quite to the contrary, we are deeply hurt in the Spirit when we offend our Father's will for us, and quickly repent - often on our bellies, our faces wet with salty tears. But Christ is faithful and just to forgive us and the Spirit guides us to receive His love, look up to Him and follow Him.

We do not live a life apart from the Spirit – we are truly dead and our lives are hid with Christ in God.

Praise God!!!

Kosta statements, The Bible is preserved not in the literal sense but in the spiritual sense; in its overall message of love. It teaches us that mercy is better than vengeance; that we should not return evil with evil. It teaches us to forgive if we expect forgiveness. That is the thread that stretches throughout the Gospels and that is what we are looking for in the rest of the Bible.

And how do we know what the bible teaches about anything if we don't have the correct words?

No Bible, no knowledge of God-period.

However, facts show that the bible has been corrupted by human hands, whether you want to believe it or not.

I guess we are to believe it because some want to believe it.

If it is corrupted, then how do we know what parts to believe, like the Creation, Incarnation and Resurrection, are they true or are they part of the corrupt parts of the Bible and how do you know the difference?

Some parts of the Bible show that the Jews did not really receive full revelation that the law and prophets were to be understood as love.

Ofcourse they did, but like many on these threads, they did not take the words literally and started putting 'spiritual' meaning to them.

Christ rebuked those who met on the road to Emmaus for rejecting what the scriptures said (Lk.24:25).

Anything that is believed that is true by any major faith, including the Greek Orthodox has to ultimately be traced to the Bible and what it actually says, not its 'spiritual' meanings.

If the confession meant a different meaning for passions, it would seem the confession would spell out the difference. Particularly since its list in this part seems to echo the orthodox writings that do not have such a caveat.

I suppose I figure they did this implicitly, since otherwise there are direct contradictions within the same paragraph. I would think it was proofread first, etc. :)

With your modification, passions="weakness of passion" you still have the problem of violating immutability, unchanging.

I don't understand. The "without" doesn't apply to that. Granted, the sentence may not have the best structure in the world, but the meaning is clear enough I think. We believe that God is immutable and unchanging. But that does not mean God must be a static being. He can have the capacity to love and hate and still be unchanging. God can walk and chew gum and the same time etc. Immutable carries with it the idea of consistency. So, if one thing made God angry today, but the same thing did not tomorrow, then that would violate immutability. But God is always consistent.

I'm not sure also what distinction you make between "passion" and "weaknesses of passion that humans so often fall into". Are there passions with weakness and passions without?

Well, for example on the one hand there is a grounded, sobering love, and on the other is a self-destructive, obsessive "love". There is anger that causes rash and unwise, impulsive decisions, and there is righteous anger. I just meant that with all the emotions, God always correctly shows them. We humans misuse our emotions all the time. :)

We believe that God is immutable and unchanging. But that does not mean God must be a static being.

If your definition of static in this case includes unchanging, changeless, that's exactly what it means. I think you are confusing this with the immaterial energies of the Holy Trinity or Godhead.

He can have the capacity to love and hate and still be unchanging. God can walk and chew gum and the same time

God is changelessly experiencing the emotions of love and hate? This is internally inconsistent.

Immutable carries with it the idea of consistency.

It carries with it the idea of not changing!

So, if one thing made God angry today, but the same thing did not tomorrow, then that would violate immutability.

If God hates something today and loves something tomorrow it violates immutability, so you postulate an unchanging infinite immaterial ball of conflicting emotions. Turn the microscope around.

You seem to be stretching here, FK, think about it: You have God experiencing simultaneous unchanging opposing emotions. It's a demi-human God that fails the further you take it.

Well, for example on the one hand there is a grounded, sobering love, and on the other is a self-destructive, obsessive "love".

This isn't love or isn't a fault of loving. We confuse many things for love. God's love through us is not an emotion; but this is another topic...

There is anger that causes rash and unwise, impulsive decisions, and there is righteous anger.

"Anyone who is angry with his brother.."

I just meant that with all the emotions, God always correctly shows them.

Perfect anger, lust, pride, envy... :)

We humans misuse our emotions all the time.

We misuse our God-given instincts. Emotions are instinctual states. Applying animal instincts to God leads us to strange theology.

Thanks for your reply as always, FK...

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.