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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Paul experienced a spiritual epiphany. Note how he immediately knew that the LORD was talking to him. He was given spiritual insight. Physical seeing is nothing in comparison.

Indeed. Thank you so very much for your insights and for that beautiful passage!

[Alamo-Girl]

Our record becomes His, and so He dies. But His record becomes ours, and so we live...

What a beautiful sermon! Thank you so much for sharing it!

Praise God!!!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Man is woefully ill-equipped to wrap his mind around God's justice. Instead he hopes for a 'god' who keeps a balance sheet and that, in the end, his assets will be greater than his liabilities.

Worse, man anthropomorphizes God with his own sense of "equity." We are not created equal - nor do we have equal challenges and opportunities. To whom much is given, much is expected. He is the Potter, we are the clay.

God's justice is a very personal thing. His generosity to some of us - His mercy to some of us - His saving some of us - are His goodness alone.

Amen, A-G!

After reading posts such as yours, filled with the certainty of God's word, and after reading sermons as the one to which I linked, I'm consumed by a sense of the immensity of God and His profoundly undeserved gift of grace. To properly understand exactly what Christ has accomplished for us is to recognize how incapable we are of doing it ourselves and to be driven to fall at His feet, exhausted of our own abilities and grateful for His work alone, 100%.

As Joe Banks prayed adrift in the middle of the ocean in "Joe Vs. the Volcano"...

"Thank you, God. Thank you for my life. I forgot how big you are."

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautiful moment that was in Joe v. The Volcano. Thank you oh so very much for remembering it and sharing it!

To properly understand exactly what Christ has accomplished for us is to recognize how incapable we are of doing it ourselves and to be driven to fall at His feet, exhausted of our own abilities and grateful for His work alone, 100%.

Amen!

Shedding that pound of pride is liberating.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. – Matthew 16:24-25

Maranatha, Jesus!

[HarleyD]

God must punish all sin, and in saving His people He makes no exception. He will not compromise Himself. But instead, He Himself becomes responsible for us and bears the judgment of His own wrath. God the Son, forsaken of God the Father, suffering as a sinner under His condemnation. Jesus Christ, the sinner's substitute, bearing the sin of many.

Excellent sermon and bears repeating.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I especially liked his conclusion...

"Perhaps I can illustrate this better than I can explain it. Christmas at our house is a very happy time. We go all out. Gifts are exchanged in the extreme. One Christmas when my daughter was very young, we were opening our presents; and she just couldn't wait for me to open her gift to me. I waited until I thought she might burst and then picked up the package and read, "To Daddy, From Gina." Taking my time, I began to guess. "Is it a new car?" "No, Daddy!" "Is it a new motorcycle?" ""No!" "A new house?" "No, now Daddy open it!" "Okay." So I unwrapped the gift slowly, and when finally it was open I found a nice new pair of gloves. "Do you like them, Daddy?" she asked. I took her up in my arms, assured her that I did, gave her a big hug and kiss, and thanked her many times over for what she had given me. And I told her, in terms she could understand, how good it was to have such a wonderful and generous daughter.

Now I have a question: who do you think paid for those gloves? Where did she get the money? Curious, isn't it -- there I was rewarding her for the things that my own money had purchased.

In a way much like that God has promised to reward us, His servants, for the very thing that He has purchased and freely provided. No wonder we find the twenty-four elders in heaven removing their crowns and throwing them back at Jesus' feet and saying, "Thou art worthy!" (Rev. 4:10). And no wonder the prophet asks in searching challenge, "Who is a God like unto thee" (Mic. 7:18).

The truth of God's righteousness is a frightening one for sinners. But when this righteousness is wedded to His grace (Ps. 85:10), it is a happy truth indeed.

[Alamo-Girl]

Beautiful excerpt, dear HarleyD! It bears repeating as you say.

[Alamo-Girl]

Beautiful metaphor/excerpt, dear Dr. Eckleburg! I too especially like the part you emphasized.

And concerning the metaphor:

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. - I John 4:18

We love God and trust Him like toddlers. Truly we are His adopted children.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 18:3

Praise God!!!

[HarleyD]

Dr. E, that is just one excellent article. I had to go back and read it several times. Thank you for posting it.

[D-fendr]

I believe that we are right to plead with the Lord for his grace.

Isn't it the Calvinist view that you either have God's grace (elect) or don't - and that no amount of pleading can change that?

[MHGinTN]

ping

[MarkBsnr]

We do no pitting.

We understand Paul’s words through the lens of the Gospels. We say that the Paulines are exclusivist, not Paul; we say that the Paulines are wrong, not Paul.

We speak and you misinterpret our words; might that misunderstanding also apply to Paul’s words? We think that it is, much as a host of heresies were created in the first millennium. Paul was misinterpreted then; does that make Paul wrong? Obviously not.

[MarkBsnr]

We think that Paul was a special case because, aside from Jesus physically picking out his Apostles (even more special than Paul, I suppose), this is one of the few cases where He directly picked somebody out in a demonstrably phyical fashion.

There is certainly an argument that Paul’s knowledge was more special or elevated than the others, but one can also argue that Jesus actually spent a lot of time ensuring that their knowledge was ingrained and exact with the others. I would be content to say that his knowledge and teachings were of the same order as the rest.

The argument against the Catholic order of baptism is that the Holy Spirit must come first; these verses support the idea that Baptism either confers the Holy Spirit or leads the way to future infusion of the Holy Spirit.

The Sacraments are not evidence that we have the Holy Spirit. A Charles Manson may take Communion every day and confess every week, but if he had no intention of repenting, the Sacraments will do no good whatsoever.

[MarkBsnr]

Why does God ordain that we pray?

How is God glorified by the Reformed praying to Him? If He is responsible for everything that we do or say, does that mean that you are the mirror for God to look into?

Are you further saying that prayer is for your benefit because you understand better your dependence on Him, and because of that your love for Him grows? Is this orthodox Calvinism?

Further; are you saying that nobody can believe in God if Jesus didn’t die? Is this also orthodox Calvinism?

[MarkBsnr]

Agreed.

I notice that Paul was left blind for 3 days after arriving at Damascus. Could this be a technique to drive home the extent of the change wrought by God upon him?

[MarkBsnr]

“We are accountable to God to act in keeping with His righteousness, and any failure to do so demands retribution (cf. Gal. 3:10).”

How are the elect accountable? What is their retribution?

“If there is a God and if He is righteous, then all unrighteousness will one day be punished. Indeed the knowledge of this aspect of divine righteousness is innate in every man. Though they deny it, still they “recognize [epignontes] the righteous judgment [dikaioma] of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death” (Rom.1:32). “

Huh? There are many who do not recognize the judgement of God. They fill the jungles both natural and concrete in today’s society. They fill academia in the West. They fill the halls of power and government. But if all unrighteousness is punished, then what happens to the unrighteousness of the elect?

“Knowing it they hate it, and hating it they deny it, but only to become more culpable.”

If they are destined before birth and have no choice, then how are they culpable?

“But all this presents a very real problem. God reveals Himself as a righteous God Who demands the same of us all and condemns all who do not conform.”

He does not demand the same of the elect.

“God must punish all sin, and in saving His people He makes no exception. He will not compromise Himself. But instead, He Himself becomes responsible for us and bears the judgment of His own wrath.”

God does not bear the wrath of the non elect. They bear it.

“It is this that makes the notion of salvation by human merit so blasphemous. It is to say that Christ’s righteousness is not enough. It is to say that His death was not sufficient payment for sin. It is to say that “Christ died in vain” (Gal.2:21). And this is why the Scriptures make so much of justification “by faith” (e.g., Rom. 5:1). God cannot pronounce us righteous on the basis of our own merit, for we have not merited enough. “All our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isa. 64:6). To approach God on the basis of what we have done is to sidestep Jesus Christ Who alone has done enough. We can only approach God on the basis of faith in His Son, acknowledging and trusting Him as the only Savior. “The righteousness of God in the gospel is revealed by faith and nothing but faith; as it is written, ‘he who through faith is righteous shall live’” (Rom. 1:17). It is the revelation of a righteous God who demands perfection and punishes all sin. But it is also the revelation of the righteous God Who in mercy saves sinners by doing for them what He requires of them...”

Only the elect get saved under Reformed doctrine. Under Christian doctrine, Christ died for all so that they may be saved. You guys keep saying that we say that merit alone gets one to heaven. This is wrong and when you say it is wrong, then you consider that proof that we are wrong.

[MarkBsnr]

Apparently, this partial God only partially assumes responsibility for a part of humanity.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

But if all unrighteousness is punished, then what happens to the unrighteousness of the elect?

It is forgiven and supplanted by the righteousness of Christ, as your Bible tells you.

"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." -- Romans 5:17

Only the elect get saved under Reformed doctrine.

LOL. The Reformed didn't write that doctrine. God did. Do you imagine any non-elect will be saved? What is the defintion of "God's elect?"

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Apparently, this partial God only partially assumes responsibility for a part of humanity.

No, this partial God assumes responsibility for a part of humanity entirely.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself" -- Ephesians 1:4-9

[MarkBsnr]

I guess it’s back to the select club versus all of humanity. John 3:16 to name one verse.

If Jesus died on His Cross to save the whole world; then we have differing views on who makes up the elect. If I remember correctly from past posts, you are of the position that most people are going to be elected; I think that you included your children in that number. If I am incorrect, then I apologize.

If you are of that view, then you are a little closer to us than some of the Reformed brethren. We still differ considerably on the steps and the order involved.

We believe that all men, if they accept God’s grace and repent completely, and follow His commandments, can possibly gain eternal life. Gospels.