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.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Re: the parable of the Prodigal Son. I found this splendid sermon by Warfield. It's well worth reading for it's understanding that while this parable exclaims one facet of Christianity, it does not display the heart of the Christian message, which is Christ's atonement...

THE PRODIGAL SON
by B.B. Warfield

"...For the exaggerated estimate which has been put upon this parable has borne bitter fruit in the world. Beginning with an effort to read into it all the Gospel, or at least the essence of the Gospel, it has ended by reading out of the Gospel all that is not in the parable. And thus this parable, the vehicle of a priceless message, has been transformed into the instrument of a great wrong. The worst things are often the corruption of the best: and the attempt to make the parable of the lost son the norm of the Gospel has resulted, I will not say merely in the curtailment of the Gospel, — I will say rather in the evisceration of the Gospel. On this platform there take their stand today a growing multitude the entire tendency and effect of all of whose efforts it is to eliminate from Christianity all that gives it value in the world, all that makes it that religion which has saved the world, and to- reduce it to the level of a merely natural religion. "The Christianity of the prodigal son is enough for us," they declare: and they declare this with gusto because, to put it briefly, they do not like the Christianity of the Bible or the Christianity of Christ, and are happy not to find them in the parable of the lost son.

Now, let us recognize frankly at the outset, that the reason why these new teachers of an unchristian Christianity do not find Christianity in the parable of the lost son is, briefly, because this parable does not set forth Christianity, but only a small fragment of Christian teaching. The turn they have given to affairs is therefore merely the nemesis that treads on the heels of the mistaken attempts to read a full Christianity into this parable. The parable was not given to teach us Christianity, in its essence or its sum. It was given to teach us one single truth: a truth of the utmost value, not only full of emotional power, but, when placed in its relation to other truths, of the highest doctrinal significance; but not in itself sufficient to constitute Christianity, or even to embody its essence. How little what this parable teaches us can be conceived as of itself Christianity may easily be made plain by simply enumerating some of the fundamental elements of Christianity which receive no expression in it: and this negative task seems to be made incumbent on us at the outset of any study of the parable by the circumstance of its perversion to the uses of the propaganda of unbelief.

We observe, then, in the first place, that there is no atonement in this parable. And indeed it is precisely because there is no atonement in this parable that it has been seized upon by the modern tendency to which we have alluded, as the norm of the only Christianity it will profess. For nothing is more characteristic of this new type of Christianity than that it knows and will know nothing of an atonement. The old Socinians were quick to perceive this feature of the parable, and to make use of it in their assault upon the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction for sin. See, they cried, the father in the parable asks no satisfaction before he will receive back his son: he rather sees him afar off and runs to meet him and gives him a free and royal welcome. The response is no doubt just that other Scriptures clearly teach the atonement of which no hint is given here; and that we have no "right to expect that every passage in Scripture, and least of all these parables, which exist under necessary limitations in their power of setting forth the truth, shall contain the whole circle of Christian doctrine." This answer is sufficient against the Socinian who appealed to Scripture as a whole and required to be reminded that we "must consider not what one Scripture says, but what all." But it scarcely avails against our modern enthusiast who either professedly or practically would fain make this parable the embodiment of all the Christianity he will profess. For him, Christianity must do without an atonement, because it is quite obvious that there is no atonement in this parable.

Nor is that more than the beginning of the matter. It must do without a Christ as well. For, we must observe, the parable has as little of Christ in it as it has of an atonement..."

[wmfights]

WM:How can you miss "these are they which testify of Me."? The point is the very law they were searching gave evidence of who JESUS is.

MB:All right, let’s examine it again.

You just don't want to get it do you?

[1000 silverlings]

I’ve searched for the post with the “kidnapped” sheep. Too far back to find I guess. At any rate, only Satan and sin can kidnap a sheep, and even then the sheep has a foreleg in it. Jesus has defeated Satan and sin so the sheep, even though “kidnapped” is still His. He will do with it as He wishes in due time.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What I'm seeing is partiality on our part is wrong, but GOD is the creator and we are the created. From the beginning GOD has been partial.

GOD won't tolerate sin in his presence, so he's partial to righteousness.

GOD sent his son to save some of us, so he's partial to those that are clothed in the righteousness of JESUS the CHRIST.

AMEN! God is not partial towards sin. He hates all sin and He judges all sin and all sin must be repaid.

But from the foundation of the world He has set His love upon those who are His, and for them He gave His Son to pay their sins -- an act of supreme, perfect and death-defying partiality.

"But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith he loved us,

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:3-10

Even our "good works" were ordained by God for His glory.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You ask those with eyes to see to become blind so you can give them a cane. The words are right there if you want to see them, just ask the LORD to guide you.

AMEN.

[1000 silverlings]

The sheep are all branded with an indelible brand, but even so, the sheep knows to Whom it belongs .

Isaiah 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

1:3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

The rebellious do not know who owns them, but those who have repented and returned,do.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I pray (now) not only for them (the Apostles), but also for (all) those who would believe in His Word. This is simply moving from the more specific (the Apostles gathered) to the general (the world of men).

LOL. Read the text, Mark. Not "would believe," but "shall believe."

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" -- John 17:20

The "general" is very specific here. "Those who will believe within the world of men;" not "all the world of men."

Jesus is saying here that God's love is for all men

That is not what the words say, Mark. The words on the page say Christ only prays for those whom the Father has given Him -- the Apostles in the room and all those in the future who will believe in Him.

Take off those magisterium spectacles and read the words for yourself. They could not be any clearer.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "Well, then the payment was not a payment in full."

Of course it's full. His death made it possible for all men to be saved, as God desires. He is the master phyiscian who offered to save anyone's life if they come to Him. The condition does not make it partial.

OK, then I suppose if you agreed to sell me something for $200, and I gave you $100, then you would stamp the bill of sale "paid in full" because the condition of my paying you the other hundred does not make my first payment partial. I would find these terms very acceptable indeed. Do you sell on e-bay much? :)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Why am I part of His flock?

Because it was God's good pleasure to appoint me to His righteousness and not to His wrath.

"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him." -- 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

How do I know this? Because I have Trinitarian faith in His Son as my Lord and Savior, the only propitiation for my sins God will accept.

"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36

It is good to know that you have told God that you are part of the flock. And here I thought God decided who was part of the flock.

God has told me I am part of His flock by the words of Scripture.

"I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me." -- Psalm 119:93

The Holy Spirit quickens us by the word of God. Yes, Jo kus, I believe that. And it is a sad situation that your church does not reaffirm this truth in your mind.

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him." -- 1 John 5:13-15

I believe John. I believe Paul. I believe Peter. I believe Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I believe that Jesus Christ, God Himself, died on the cross to pay for every one of my sins so that I will stand before God blameless, and loved by Him who created me to glorify Him and to enjoy Him forever.

Your church tells you to be uncertain, fearful and not "presumptuous."

Scripture tells us to presume all we can in and by and for His name.

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." -- 2 Timothy 3:14-15

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Scripture is a map; the map is not the thing. Jesus Is. Scripture describes Jesus.

Yes, Scripture is a map and by this map we learn of God's will for us through Jesus Christ, the "X" that marks the spot.

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." -- 2 Timothy 3:15

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Do not presume.

"Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it." -- 1 Thessalonians 3:24

Does God call you, jo kus? If so, then relax; He is faithful and He will do that which He has promised.

[kosta50]

So are you saying that a working definition of Christian would be the acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the foundation of belief, with the rest of Scripture supporting rather than redefining it?

A scriptural definition—Yes. Our theology must be in concert with the Gospels. A theology based on the Gospels will correctly interpret the rest. The Gospels represent the God's full revelation to man. Without the Gospels, there is no Christianity. Te rest of the scriptures become meaningless.

There is a reason why only the Gospels are on the altar. There is a reason why everyone stands when only when the Gospels are read (at least in TLM), or why only clergy read form the Gospels.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

How they must resent Paul, he was not of the twelve.

Bingo! We've seen evidence of that on this very thread. They dismiss Paul; they call him a Gnostic; they say He is not part of the Gospel message; and most of all, they forget he was chosen by God to preach Christ risen.

Next to Jesus Christ, who has given us a more certain testament to God's truth than Paul?

The fact that Paul articulated the Good News so clearly is part of what they resent. It doesn't jive with their unBiblical mumbo-jumbo.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

There is only one flock, and you only come to it if the Father draws you, period. The word Christian means an anointed one. A "Christian" is an anointed one because he has received the Holy Spirit from Christ "the Anointed."

Amen!

And a Christian receives the Holy Spirit NOT through any ritual or sprinkling of "holy water" or by the incantations of "another Christ," but by the will and design and purpose of God alone.

[1000 silverlings]

yes

[1000 silverlings]

No one controls the HS.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

[kosta50]

Have you posted any Scripture to support this?

Yes I have. Look up "partial" or "biased" and see what you come up with.

GOD won't tolerate sin in his presence, so he's partial to righteousness

He is NOT partial to anything. He IS righteousness (i.e. just) all the time and to everyone. He doesn't like you; if you are righteous in His eyes then you are truly righteous, not because he "feels" so or because He "thinks" so, but because it IS so!

We were talking about His judgment, which is always just and impartial. The Bible says He is impartial. You and the rest of your community have a problem with what the Bible says.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The rebellious do not know who owns them

"The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble." -- Proverbs 4:19

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lolol

[Kolokotronis]

“OK, then I suppose if you agreed to sell me something for $200, and I gave you $100, then you would stamp the bill of sale “paid in full” because the condition of my paying you the other hundred does not make my first payment partial. I would find these terms very acceptable indeed.”

That’s a very odd analogy, FK. In all honesty, your problem, and so far as I can see, the Protestant West’s problem, is that it doesn’t understand what the ransom was for or to whom or why it was paid. You should re-read +Athanasius the Great “On the Incarnation”. Sadly, this couples with what would appear to be a basic misunderstanding of man’s original created nature.