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.

Here we see some overly literal mistranslation of protestants who are the same folks who consider most of Corthinians to be anaocronistic waste of parchment non applicable to their churches since their favorite lawyers said so.

LOL. The verses in question are from HEBREWS.

You can't refute Hebrews so you truck in unnamed verses from "most of Corinthians" hoping to prove -- who know what you're hoping to prove at this point?

None of your rebuttals contains any Scripture or reasoning other than some snide remark.

Very telling.

So is this "true" Christian guaranteed not to fall away, EVER? And how do you know you are "born again", since you do not consider Baptism any purpose besides some sort of ritual?

The doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints says that such a true Christian is guaranteed not to ever fall away permanently. Periods of falling away are still possible, but the person will either be brought back or taken home before it is too late. ...... Being born again is the same as being regenerated, so all the same arguments for assurance would apply.

FK: "From the beginning we know that some who profess faith and say "Lord, Lord" will go to Heaven and some will not. To the latter, Jesus says "I NEVER knew you". Therefore, they could never have been true believers."

...... What happens, then, when the "self-proclaimed elect" enters into the company of Christ in heaven and He says "I never knew you to begin with"? Thus, even in your theological scheme, salvation into heaven is not guaranteed, no matter how much you wish and wish and wish for it to be true.

You are right that there will be some who claim the same thing as I do who will be lost. No getting around that. That's why I can't claim with Divine certainty. I can however, claim with the certainty that I have and I can understand. If I owned it, would I be willing to bet my eternal soul on it? Yes, without hesitation. That's what assurance means to me.

Many Christians stress only the Scripture as the basis of their Christian faith. Catholics however, have retained Church teachings and Tradition, as part of its spirituality and theological reflections. That is why we and the East share a 2000 year old faith. That is why we have a strong and stable faith. We don’t change the Bible, we don’t abridge or edit it, and we don’t claim that St. Paul wrote our theology, under the tutelage of St. Calvin.

There are several mainstream Protestant denominations that are self destructing as they attempt to change their very tenets and doctrines.

But every huckster with a new angle on a new assortment of verse culled from any corner of the Bible can hang up a shingle or put up a tent and tithe the rubes.

Paul is speaking to a different question.

This verse, taken by itself, says that God works in us to have the will and the deeds to fulfill His pleasure.

It most certainly does not say that ALL one’s deeds and will are of God’s will. By definition, a human cannot. You cannot and neither can I. How do we know? Simple. We are sinners. And therefore ALL one’s deeds and will are not of God.

It gets real shaky to claim that everything that you do is of and from God. When a traffic cop stops you because you didn’t signal or you do a rolling stop, are you going to tell him that God made you do it?

Can you show where in Hebrews it says Catholic and Orthodox priests make sacrifices?

Huh? Hebrews says not to make a sacrifice of Christ over and over.

If you mean where is the evidence that Catholics and Orthodox continue to make a sacrifice of Christ in the mass, then read this...

THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD

"By definition a priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a sacrifice; it is, in a mystical sense, a re-presentation of the identical sacrifice that Jesus made of himself on the altar of the Cross on Calvary almost 2000 years ago. So because the Catholic priest, in celebrating the Eucharist (= Mass, Liturgy) acts in the person of Christ, and in a mysterious way offers once again the unique sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross...
Most Protestants avoid the title (priest) because they do not believe that what they call "the Lord's Supper" is a sacrifice..."

Thank God.

And as if this denial of Hebrews 10 wasn't bad enough, we also find in this article the rancid cherry on top of the cake of blasphemy --

"Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ."

News flash: The Lord's Supper is NOT a sacrifice because, as Hebrews 10 tells us, Christ's "one sacrifice" has been accepted by God and thus, "by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:12).

And any man who presumes to call himself "another Christ" gives every indication of being cursed.

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." -- Galatians 1:6-12

"And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, Here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things." -- Mark 13:21-23

3 [5-7] A passage from Psalm 40:7-9 is placed in the mouth of the Son at his incarnation. As usual, the author follows the Septuagint text. There is a notable difference in Hebrews 10:5 (Psalm 40:7), where the Masoretic text reads “ears you have dug for me” (”ears open to obedience you gave me,” NAB), but most Septuagint manuscripts have “a body you prepared for me,” a reading obviously more suited to the interpretation of Hebrews.

4 [8] Sacrifices and offerings, holocausts and sin offerings: these four terms taken from the preceding passage of Psalm 40 (with the first two changed to plural forms) are probably intended as equivalents to the four principal types of Old Testament sacrifices: peace offerings (Lev 3, here called sacrifices); cereal offerings (Lev 2, here called offerings); holocausts (Lev 1); and sin offerings (Lev 4-5). This last category includes the guilt offerings of Lev 5:14-19.

5 [11-18] Whereas the levitical priesthood offered daily sacrifices that were ineffectual in remitting sin (Hebrews 10:11), Jesus offered a single sacrifice that won him a permanent place at God’s right hand. There he has only to await the final outcome of his work (Hebrews 10:12-13; cf Psalm 110:1). Thus he has brought into being in his own person the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:33-34) that has rendered meaningless all other offerings for sin (Hebrews 10:14-18).

We do all this in memory of Him, as He commanded us to do. We recreate the Last Supper, as He commanded us. The Body and Blood are His, as He instructed us.

He is the One who takes away the SINS OF THE WORLD. The Lamb of God, the Sacrifice that pays for all of our sins.

Hebrews says that the One Sacrifice has done the work. We merely follow what He said. I understand that, as the Jews who cut and ran, you object to cannibalism. It is hard, who can handle it?

It is so inspiring reading Scripture. Luke 22:

31
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

You wonder at the basis for the Catholic Church. The Bible is.

FK: "The difference is in who gets the credit for it. For you, the credit must go to man. We give all the credit to God."

Find me one instance where we give credit to man in our theology or liturgy. That is just plain bogus, FK. We don't give credit to man; we put expectations on man.

Given the Apostolic view of free will and man's cooperation in salvation, I would say you always give credit to man. But let's try it this way. The following is from Wiki's Glossary of spirituality-related terms:

Virtue: (Greek αρετη; Latin virtus) The habitual, well-established, readiness or disposition of man's powers directing them to some goodness of act. (1) Virtue is moral excellence of a man or a woman. The word is derived from the Greek arete (αρετη). As applied to humans, a virtue is a good character trait. The Latin word virtus literally means "manliness," from vir, "man" in the masculine sense; and referred originally to masculine, warlike virtues such as courage. In one of the many ironies of etymology, in English the word virtue is often used to refer to a woman's chastity. In the Greek it is more properly called ηθικη αρετη. It is "habitual excellence". It is something practiced at all times. The virtue of perseverance is needed for all and any virtue since it is a habit of character and must be used continuously in order for any person to maintain oneself in virtue. (emphasis added)

Now, just tell me this is theologically bogus (and why) and you're off the hook. :)

FK: "In any case perseverance must physically take place, so that prohibits sitting back and relaxing."

That is inconsistent with your theology of double predestination. Either you persevere because God makes you persevere, or you fail because God makes you fail by design—and there is nothing you can do to change it. So, those who choose not to do anything because they are already "saved" can always say God leads me, I am who I am and what I am and where I am just as God made me. No guilt whatsoever. In fact, it promotes sinning, just as Luther taught.

No, no, no. :) Perseverance is not for everybody, it is ONLY for the elect. How can one persevere in something he never started? So, the second group of people you speak of do not exist. God only guarantees perseverance, He never prevents someone from completing it. Those who never do anything are just regular lost people, regardless of their false professions. They are not eligible to persevere. So, they will sin just like any other lost person would.

If you are "saved" then it's not an accomplishment but a foregone conclusion. One could just as easily say that he will be sanctified on God's time whenever that happens and not really worry about being sanctified on earth.

Nope. :) You are describing "hyper-Calvinism" and NO ONE around here believes in that. The Bible tells us not only that we are to serve, but that we must be equipped to serve. That can't happen by sitting around. The new heart God gives us moves us to follow these decrees, so we are motivated to participate in activities that will lead to us becoming ever more sanctified, and ever more faithful in His service.

Hebrews says that the One Sacrifice has done the work. We merely follow what He said. I understand that, as the Jews who cut and ran, you object to cannibalism. It is hard, who can handle it?

If "the One Sacrifice has done the work," forever perfecting them who believe, why do you offer Him over and over again in contradiction to Hebrews 10?

We are to "remember" His one-time sacrifice on the cross; not to make "another sacrifice" of Him by re-sacrificing Him over and over.

The sacrifice is complete and has been accepted by God. Do you doubt God has accepted Christ's sacrifice for your sins and do you doubt that Christ paid for them in full?

As for "cannibalism," this error is at the heart of why the Romanist church has a bloodthirsty history.

God's children are "spritually-minded," and have no need of repetitive oaths and continuing blood sacrifices.

"It is finished" (John 19:30). His redemptive work on the cross is complete.

You wonder at the basis for the Catholic Church. The Bible is.

If that were true, you would understand Isaiah 53...

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand." -- Isaiah 53:5;9-10

One sacrifice, complete, perfect, accepted; no repetition required.

this legalistic 'acceptance of sacrifice' reeks of Roman legalism

I realize a lot of the Scriptures don't fit your erroneous presuppositions about God and Christ and man, but God making Christ an offering for our sins predates the Romans by 450 years.

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." -- Isaiah 53:10-11

Christ and His ministry in the Gospels is God's full revelation to man, FK. To recognize and accept this is to become a Christian. Everything is then seen through His eyes and words. The Jews did not receive full revelation until Christ, and all that was written was leading, foreshadowing His coming. As such it cannot be used on the save level.

Well, according to you the Jews had no revelation at all because they did not have the Gospels. To say that the Gospels are the FULL revelation of God to man is to disagree with 99% of the rest of Christianity. It is certainly not the position of your Church. I could find nothing on the GOAA site distinguishing the Gospels away from the rest of the Bible in terms of revelation. The following is from that site: Rt. Rev. Maximos Aghiorgoussis, Th.D., Bishop of Pittsburgh

a) The Holy Scriptures -- The Holy Bible (or Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments) is the most authoritative part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. As with today's laws that govern the life of our modern society, these laws are the product of the life of the community; however, once produced, they are placed above and regulate this life. So it is with the Holy Scripture: once established by the Christian community, led by the Holy Spirit of God, then Scripture is placed above and regulates the life of the Christian community. The Bible is the product and the epiphenomenon of the life of the Church, being also the work of men. But it is also the work of the Holy Spirit of God, working in this life of the Church. This is why the Church is subjected to the authority of the Bible. (emphasis added)

You see, if the WHOLE Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit, then the WHOLE Bible is a revelation of God. The Gospels cannot be a full revelation by themselves. I don't understand how you could call non-Gospel passages "God's word", but not recognize them as "God's revelation". That makes no logical sense.

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.