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.

Where in the Bible does it say that man has any free will at all, much less some kind of inviolate Free Will that God refuses to interfere with?

EVERYTIME that God tells man to obey Him, it implies that man has the ability to do so - or not. The FACT that man CAN REFUSE to do God's will tells us that God allows man's free will to exist. God made man in His image - which includes the ability to have a free will. This is something that ONLY man has. No other material creation has free will, or made in the image of God.

Quite frankly, the Church has unanimously affirmed that man has free will. They refer to Scriptures over and over again to prove this idea. It seems fairly obvious that man has free will by merely looking at life.

Regards

That is not correct either.

I can only document what I read at the Orthodox websites and post the websites where I get the information from. If they are incorrect I would suggest you contact their webmasters. Otherwise, if there are multiple versions of the Orthodox view, then that would be similar to Protestants denomination. I'd be happy to go to the correct Orthodox denomination website that you prefer for my information.

But for you to say I'm wrong on my view without a legitimate reference doesn't help my understanding. Please provide me a source for your information and I will be happy to read up on it. I don't need some Greek father to read from. I'm sure that some tech-savvy Orthodox has been able to succiently condense the Orthodox position down to a few statements. If you don't agree with the Orthodox sites that I've provided fine; just provide me with someone else that condenses this down.

EVERYTIME that God tells man to obey Him, it implies that man has the ability to do so - or not.

I would argue that you have the wrong implication. Every time God tells man to obey Him is simply evidences to the rest of us that we are incapable of obedience without His help. It isn't that we have the ability. The Law was given for our instruction so that we can see how far short we fall, not how much we measure up. God has given us ALL these examples simply to show us that we CANNOT obey Him.

God tell people not to stick peas up there nose and people stick peas up their noses. God tell people not to go swimming without sun screen and people go swimming without sun screen. God tell people to back up their hard drives and people don't do it and suffer the results. All the examples in the Old (and some in the New) serves to show what a disobedient people we are and how we need God's help to overcome this disobedience. God gives us His Law and we can't keep it. As Paul states, the Law isn't bad but we died because we refuse to follow it (well at least the parts we don't like).

Quite frankly, the Church has unanimously affirmed that man has free will.

Nonsense. This was always an area of contention. The west and Church has abandon their monergistic view of the western church. Roman Catholicism is moving towards Orthodoxy.

You are?

A little known fact about the choir:

Strictly speaking, the choir is that part of the church where the stalls of the clergy are. The term is often loosely used for the whole of the eastern arm, including the choir proper, sanctuary, retro-choir, etc. At Westminster Abbey the stalls are in the east nave and therefore no part of the choir is in the eastern arm. At Canterbury the stalls are in the eastern arm and the choir occupies its western bays, i.e. the space between the crossing and the sanctuary. In non-collegiate churches the eastern arm is called the chancel, the eastern portion of which is the presbytery or sanctuary.

Or were you talking about the singers? :)

We should distinguish between:

spontaneous acts, those proceeding from an internal principle (e.g. the growth of plants and impulsive movements of animals);
voluntary acts in a wide sense, those proceeding from an internal principle with apprehension of an end (e.g. all conscious desires); and, finally
those voluntary in the strict sense, that is, deliberate or free acts.

Am I to understand that under Reformed doctrine that man can only commit acts of spontaneity (ie God providing the entire inner principle of action and man CANNOT do any other), or does man have the ABILITY to commit acts only with that apprehension of an end (ie towards either heaven (if elect) or hell (if non elect)), but not voluntary in the strict sense of free will that man deliberately chooses specific actions freely?

Are you saying that hell is not a real place?

Of course not, everyone knows it's at the center of the earth surrounded by a big oxygen pocket next to a lode of brimstone.

It could be at the end of a Black Hole

No oxygen, no light. sorry.

or right beneath our feet in another dimension.

You get this from scripture, right?

I cannot help what John Paul might have thought.

Your original point was about what Roman Catholics believed. I gave Acquinas, a Pope and the Catechism.

I know Catholics are trying to change the definition of hell to be more consistent with the Orthodox.

Or perhaps we're one church and it's frustrating when attempts at "let's you and him fight" don't work.

"...but not voluntary in the strict sense of free will that man deliberately chooses specific actions freely?"

Let me answer your question by asking you a question; what choice do you think that man, as a free agent capable of choosing specific actions would make if given the choice of heaven or hell? Put another way, if God lined everyone up in the Garden of Eden and told each person, "Don't eat the fruit.", do you think there would be some in the crowd that would heed what God said? Do you think that you are far more capable of making a better decision than Adam who was perfect man? Yet that is what you are saying.

It's the way in which we have been created. We will all take that fruit because we want it. Adam was perfect but we can get down on him. We would make the exact same choice. 100% of the time.

,i>Of course not, everyone knows it's at the center of the earth surrounded by a big oxygen pocket next to a lode of brimstone.

Actually NewAdvent proposed that it was at the center of the earth. I'm not sure. The scriptures are silent as to where hell is just as it is silent as to where our Lord is physically seated (you do believe in a physical resurrection I hope). Of course Mary was suppose to have been physically resurrection-that I'm not sure. Elijah and Enoch also were taken immediately to heaven. Where are they?

Or perhaps we're one church and it's frustrating when attempts at "let's you and him fight" don't work.

Nope! Pretending to be "one church" is a farce in my mind. The doctrine and organizational structure between Orthodox and Catholic are completely different. What I find is that the Orthodox tend to be very firm and committed in their beliefs. Catholics, otoh, have been slowing discarding and dissolving their beliefs for the last 1500 years. Fathers that have written things 1700 years ago mean nothing anymore because we have "later" information. HA! Augustine said that Christianity was like someone throwing a pebble into water, the farther away the ripple, the more distortion.

There's only two beliefs. You can stay where you're at but if you move you can only go one of two ways.

I would argue that you have the wrong implication. Every time God tells man to obey Him is simply evidences to the rest of us that we are incapable of obedience without His help.

You are forgeting that just because man has been given free will does not mean that God does not aid man to complete a task that man assents to, with God's help. You seem to hold an "either/or" idea, rather than one where God and man "work" together. If man has no free will, then there is no such thing as sin, since sin is a WILLFUL disobedience to God.

The west and Church has abandon their monergistic view of the western church. Roman Catholicism is moving towards Orthodoxy.

Nonsense. I have posted numerous Western Fathers that show they also believed in free will.

Regards

In other words, you’re ducking the question as to the level that God controls each individual.

Okay, let’s take the Adam scenario. The Cherub called Lucifer tempted Eve and Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit. Until that temptation occurred, did either Adam or Eve have inclination towards disobeying God? Nope.

It wasn’t until the serpent brought that temptation forward that Eve, then Adam disobeyed God. The serpent persuaded Eve, who then persuaded Adam. If the temptation was not there, we have no evidence that Adam and Eve would have disobeyed whatsoever.

The father of all lawyers persuaded Eve. He didn’t frogmarch her over and make her eat. He didn’t program a robot slave. He was smooth and slick and influenced her to make up her own mind. So she did. Now did she know the extent of what would happen after she did what she did? Not really. Did she know that: Gen 3:

16
To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”
17
To the man he said: “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life.
18
Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field.
19
By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.”

She didn’t know that she chose hell. The difference is that we do know, we Christians. We do know that God reaches out with His Grace and we do know that if we repulse it, then we choose hell as well as Eve. We do know the difference between good and evil because it passes to us from Adam and Eve.

And, faced with a choice between heaven and hell, with God in His Heaven on one side and satan and his angels in everlasting fire on the other, most people are going to choose God.

It is a ridiculous notion that God chooses people to go to hell and adjusts their mindset so that they like it. The descriptions of hell are the worst possible descriptions of any environment that the early Jews could think up. Hell is NASTY. It is TERRIBLE. It is everlasting agony beyond description for all eternity.

Now what exactly it is, or where it is, or anything along those lines - does it really matter? No. All we need to understand is how utterly impossibly terrible it is. We need God’s Grace to understand the difference between them, as well as the understanding that our actions and choices lead us along the Via, the Way, the Journey. The Reformed contention that God’s Grace is necessary is absolutely true. It is.

But it doesn’t stop there. We suffer the consequences of what we DO. And don’t do. Salvation is not a bottomless drink glass that we get as a door prize, or a debit card that never runs out no matter how much we sin.

Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He doesn’t say that He drives the bus to Heaven. He walks beside us. But we have to walk.

It may be a farce in your mind, but your mind is not the Church. St. Augustine said a lot of things, as did many of the Church Fathers that were corrected or treated as heresy by the Church.

The Church is greater than the sum of its earthly parts due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That is why errant men can be a part of the inerrant Church.

New Advent has this to say on the physical location of hell: The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know. St. Chrysostom reminds us: “We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it” (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674). St. Augustine says: “It is my opinion that the nature of hell-fire and the location of hell are known to no man unless the Holy Ghost made it known to him by a special revelation”, (De Civ. Dei, XX, xvi, in P.L., XLI, 682).

Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24).

Hell could be a place; it could be a state. All that matters is that it is a really bad place to be.

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.