Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)
Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: apostolic; catholic; fascinatedwcatholics; givemerome; obsessionwithrome; papistsrule; pope; protestant; solascriptura
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 8,161-8,1808,181-8,2008,201-8,220 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: kosta50

You want historical facts? Historical fact no.1 - Mary was a sinner.
Historical fact no.2 - The saints ain’t up there listening to you. They are busy praising Jesus.

I could keep going, but what’s the use. You believe what you want. I’ll see you in heaven.


8,181 posted on 10/03/2007 7:11:00 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8178 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki
The Reformers, and particularly John Calvin, stressed the way the objective, written Word and the inner, supernatural ministry of the Holy Spirit work together, the Holy Spirit illuminating the Word to God's people. The Word without the illumination of the Holy Spirit remains a closed book." - James M Boice

AMEN!

"For by the Scripture as our guide and teacher, God not only makes those things plain which would otherwise escape our notice, but almost compels us to behold them; as if he had assisted our dull sight with spectacles." -- JOHN CALVIN "Commentary on Genesis" Vol. I

8,182 posted on 10/03/2007 7:12:40 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8152 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

***Dear brother/Sister... for the record I did not call you a heretic . I stand by calling John Calvin a heretic because he knowingly deceived others.
You are deceived and I will pray for you.
... And I consider you a separated brother/sister in Christ.***

For the record, I did not say that you called me a heretic. I said for you to call me a heretic would be wrong. Big difference.

Prove that Calvin decieved anybody. Just because he differed with the Church, does not make him wrong or a heretic. Everthing he taught was with and through scripture.

You say I am decieved? I say you are decieved by the church you worship.

If you believe in Jesus as your savior, I concider you a brother in Christ. If you do not believe in Jesus as your savior, I will pray that God will elect you, too.

I would give you the same kind warning. Don’t put words in other people’s mouths. As Dr. E says, that’s unsanitary.

PS, I am a tenor, that would make me a brother.


8,183 posted on 10/03/2007 7:21:36 PM PDT by irishtenor (How much good could a Hindu do, if a Hindu could do good?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8180 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; kosta50
The Bible testifies of God and I believe its testimony is true.

That doesn't make the Bible God, nor does it mean that we now know everything about God because of the Bible's so-called testimony, as you say. Again, the Scriptures mediate the idea of God to us, but not His inner self.

The word was God.

Yes, ONE WORD SPOKEN IN ETERNITY, not the Bible, dear sister. You are again confusing God with the bible.

In Scriptures, God is not understood abstractly in His eternal essence, as in Plato or Aristotle, but by His INTERVENTIONS here in human history, transforming our history into sacred history.

For example, Gregory of Nyssa wrote about God: "How to understand how someone comes when He is always present".

Christian praxis leads to Christian theoria. Not Bible reading.

Kosta, feel free to help me to enlighten our Protestant sister here. Easterners have a knack of explaining this well.

Regards

8,184 posted on 10/03/2007 8:55:36 PM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8144 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; wmfights; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg
MB to WM: "Do you frogmarch your adult children through life? Or, as your children grow and mature, do you gradually let them go? Do you treat your adult children as you did when they were newborn?"

This is an interesting difference between Apostolics and Reformers. What is the best corresponding relationship in human terms to the Biblical God-child relationship? I think Apostolics see it as parent to adult child. When my children are grown I will honor their opinions, and give them respect. That matches the Apostolic view of free will. Of course, when they are grown they will no longer need me to provide for them much because they can take care of most things themselves. I will "let them go" as you say. They will no longer be completely dependent on me. I will see them as younger semi-equals.

As a Reformer, I really do not think we ever get beyond the stage of comparative "toddler-hood". :) No matter how grown up, smart, and mature in the faith I think I am, I will ALWAYS be COMPLETELY dependent on Him for everything. There is nothing I can do for myself, it must be done for me, especially salvation. This is Calvinism. I think it is a very interesting difference indeed.

8,185 posted on 10/03/2007 8:56:28 PM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7520 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
Why do you think there is any contradiction between “only choose to sin” and doing good?

Because sin is bad?

8,186 posted on 10/03/2007 9:18:27 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8155 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; suzyjaruki; irishtenor; blue-duncan
"And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." -- Luke 22:19

Since Jesus was standing right there in front of them, the "body" of which Jesus spoke must not have been His actual body but a spiritual remembrance of the one-time sacrifice for the sins of His flock.

Transubstantiation is worshipping the creation, and not the Creator.

8,187 posted on 10/03/2007 9:20:22 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8154 | View Replies]

To: jo kus

Can’t let your post 8,062 go by without thanking you for recognizing the contemplative tradition in the West.

Thanks.


8,188 posted on 10/03/2007 9:23:54 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8062 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
So how can an unbeliever love like that when he has not experienced the love of God? He can do good but always for the wrong motives because he has no relationship with the One who is good.

Amen.

8,189 posted on 10/03/2007 9:30:21 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8155 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
I only have one document.

lol. Amen. How is it some people are quick to believe men's writings, but not the inspired word of God through Scripture?

8,190 posted on 10/03/2007 9:32:57 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8157 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; Alex Murphy; suzyjaruki; irishtenor; P-Marlowe; Alamo-Girl; ...
Frankly, Kosta, so much of that is unbiblical and nearly nonsensical. As an example...

Sin was not ingrained in human nature.

Wrong. We are all the children of our first father.

"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.)

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Romans 5:17-19

Yet the possibility to sin was rooted in the free will given to humans.

So it's merely a "possibility" that we will sin? Thus, there must be people around here who haven't sinned? Do you know any offhand?

It was indeed freedom that rendered the human being as an image of the Maker; but it was also freedom that from the very beginning contained within itself the possibility to fall away from God.

That sentence makes no sense at all to me.

Out of His love for humans God did not want to interfere in their freedom and forcibly avert sin.

So LOVE compels God to permit us to sin and be damned to eternal darkness?

Very peculiar. Do you have any Scripture that supports the notion that the freedom to sin constitutes God's love?

I would like to ask our Protestant participants to simply copy this and keep it for future discussions.

LOL. I don't ask others to do my homework and keep a copy of the Westminster Confession on hand. When I want to refer to it, I post it. You probably can do the same.

8,191 posted on 10/03/2007 10:00:27 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8160 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
How is it some people are quick to believe men's writings…

"Institutes of the Christian Religion" and the Westminster Confession excepted of course. :)

8,192 posted on 10/03/2007 10:02:14 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8190 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

What is the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man?


8,193 posted on 10/03/2007 10:04:55 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8168 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Transubstantiation is worshipping the creation, and not the Creator.

Only if you partake unworthily. Take heart, you aren't the first to run away from this teaching.

8,194 posted on 10/03/2007 10:04:58 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8187 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I give up. What’s Calvin say?


8,195 posted on 10/03/2007 10:05:35 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8193 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

It could take longer than that.


8,196 posted on 10/03/2007 10:07:37 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8174 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I believe it. You remind me why I decided not to study law.


8,197 posted on 10/03/2007 10:09:54 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8196 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; blue-duncan
Hopefully this is clearer...

Paul wrote "whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Was he wrong?

8,198 posted on 10/03/2007 10:10:02 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8174 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Sorry, you’ll still need to translate faith and sin into Calvinese for me.

I have been in court before, y’know. Gotta know what you’re really agreeing to, before you sign.


8,199 posted on 10/03/2007 10:13:02 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8198 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Forest Keeper; P-Marlowe; xzins; blue-duncan; HarleyD; irishtenor; suzyjaruki; wmfights; ..
One is either wicked or just. You can't be both.

That sounds positively Reformed.

And how is a man justified?

8,200 posted on 10/03/2007 10:13:12 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 8,161-8,1808,181-8,2008,201-8,220 ... 13,161-13,166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson