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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If someone expresses non Christian views, then that is their perogative. If they express non Christian views and call them Christian views on a forum like this, then do I not have recourse to call them non Christian and the reasons why?

Please give us the "non Christian views" of those mentioned as examples, such as myself, Forest Keeper, Alamo-Girl, 1000silverlings, etc.

Those "non Christian views" must be pretty egregious for you to deny us the name of "Christian." So please be specific. What views are "non Christian?"

you can't but wonder is their faith in an institution, or JESUS.

I suspect, when we arrive in the next life, we will discover there was some of both in most every assembly.

My musing is that at the root of the differences between the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine and tradition v the other Christian faiths is the emphasis on the physical versus the spiritual side of a Christian's walk.

The most obvious is that one side looks to a physical succession from the apostles forward - and the other to a spiritual succession from the apostles forward.

Less obvious is that one side emphasizes the physical beings who were used of God for guidance (Mary, saints, Popes, magisterium, etc.) while the other emphasizes the spiritual words of God in Scripture and His indwelling Spirit.

And of course one side emphasizes physical good works and the other, that good works are the fruit of the Spirit.

And, too, one side emphasizes physical aids to maturity in the faith - Eucharist, rosaries, holy water, crossing, stations of the cross, liturgy, etc. - while the other side emphasizes spiritual maturity through assembly, teaching, study, prayer, etc.

IOW, I muse that it is largely a matter of emphasis though I do not see how it can be reconciled or balanced in this life.

Nevertheless, I thank God for all of the assemblies because surely, a newborn Christian can find a fellowship in which to mature as a Christian whatever his inclination.

Any hoot, those are just my musings on the subject... no Scriptures this time. LOL!

So how do you know you are a "sheep", then?

Your question was asked of Paul and his answer is our answer,

"For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us." -- 2 Timothy 1:12-14

It's just so much easier than your magisterium tells you -- believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, as the propitiation for our sins, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, as the reason for all existence, "by whom all things consist" (Col. 1:17).

His sheep follow Him because Christ "knows them." That's how they know they are His sheep.

I am responsible for every decision I make.

And every decision I make is part of God's plan for His creation, ordained by Him from before the foundation of the world.

Now that's not an easy idea to wrap our brain around, but it is the truth as revealed in Scripture.

"The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD." -- Proverbs 16:33

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." -- Jeremiah 10:23

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" -- Ephesians 1:11

"Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that." -- James 4:14-15

... if you ever do read their Church Father’s writings, you will read, though it will be passionately denied, that the “Church” saves,...

I am planning on getting there. I just started reading Miller's Church History and want to finish that first.

I think reading this and other threads you can get a good feel for where posters are at by their responses to some questions.

Where does Faith come from?

Have you ever just asked Jesus to save you?

What do you think about your church persecuting Christians in the past?

I've noticed that the Reformers are pretty quick with decisive answers and most others are very ambivalent at best.

We are saying that man is instructed to reach out for God’s saving Grace, and all things come from that.

Does man do so based on his inner goodness, his power because he is a man? If every man is graced with inner goodness, then why is it that some reach out for saving grace and some reject? Is it that some have built up their free-will intelligence, or their free-will love, more than others?

Paul says this:

Rom 7:18-19 : 18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good , but I cannot carry it out. 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do — this I keep on doing.

Paul didn't seem to think that his inner goodness was good enough to be able to reach out for saving grace on his own. What would the non-Pauline reading of this be?

Reformed doctrine says that it doesn’t matter if man reaches out or not, the Grace is put into him, and then all things come from that.

No, Reformed doctrine teaches that it is always God who reaches out and takes hold of man's hand, which was flailing about aimlessly and without purpose beforehand. Man never has the ability to reach out himself on his own.

We also argue about what free will comprises. We believe that man is singly predestined to heaven unless he refuses God and then is rightly Judged to hell. I am unable to understand what the Reformed believe about free will because of the apparent variation in beliefs, but the statement that sticks with me is that nothing that man does matters.

You can be certain that ALL Reformed believe that the initial destination of all mankind is hell, not Heaven. The scriptural evidence is overwhelming that the fallen nature is plenty enough to condemn if unchanged. To be honest, I was under the distinct impression that Roman Catholics also believed that original sin was fatal by itself. But you are telling me the exact opposite. So now I am unsure of the Latin belief because of "apparent variations". :)

You've presented a thought I had not considered. It is something I will have to think about for a while.

I think the parable about the wheat and tares is easily applied to all Christian assemblies.

Your post 7,343 is really intriguing. I never thought of it that way before but it lines up pretty closely. Physical versus spiritual.

I wonder if that comes down to the same thing as carnal versus spiritual?

I just reread Romans 7. What a terrific witness to the struggle in all of us...

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." -- Romans 7:23-25

FWIW, one verse comes to mind.

Roms. 5:17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one (Adam), much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.

I added the (Adam) in case there was any confusion about who's offense brought death.

If you don't have free will, how can you be responsible for your decisions?

That question ultimately makes no sense because I believe the concept of "free will" is an oxymoron. The term is self-contradictory. The concept of a "will that is free" doesn't exist as you would define it and I've just given you plenty of Scripture to support that fact.

In the simplest terms, do you believe God is all-knowing and has been from before the foundation of the world? Do you believe God declared the end from the beginning? Do you believe God "knows" the next thought in your head and every word of your next response and do you believe He has always known these things?

Every person is responsible for all of his/her decisions.

What is significant is Paul’s passage to the Romans in which he laments the sinful nature that is part of his being.

He says “the things I want to do, I don’t; the things I don’t want to do, I do....who shall deliver me from this body...? I thank God for my Lord Jesus Christ.” (forgive the Romans 7 inaccuracies here, I’m going by memory.)

In short, Paul, at that time a Christian is lamenting the continued influence of the human nature. His answer to the human nature that lives inside each of us is NOT “Try Harder.” The answer is Jesus Christ and His grace and forgiveness.

This is why the apostle John also said, “If WE say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” He went on to say, “but if anyone sins WE have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

Folks are not free to an intentionally sinful lifestyle; that is evidence that they are not elect. Yet, they are foolish if they don’t recognize the contaminating effects that their sinful human nature has on their lives even after their salvation. Residing in their flesh it can rear its ugly head at any moment.

We aren’t clean because we personally decide to do everything right.

We are always and forever clean because of the gracious sacrificial blood of our Lord Jesus.

Those who wish to make it on their own power are free to try. As for me, I willingly admit my absolute need for the crutch God has provided me.

Thanks for your reply.

This implies they have a choice. I believe the Calvinist view is they don't. Or is that only the elect have free will?

As for me, I willingly admit my absolute need for the crutch God has provided me.

Amen! But again that implies you can make choices.

The concept of a "will that is free" doesn't exist as you would define it..

I'm defining it here as the ability to make make decisions. To decide whether to do x or y. Like you are deciding now if and how to reply.

He has always known these things?

Yes. And God's omniscience and man having free will are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

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.