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.

I suppose not.

The whole point, though, is that St. Paul makes this statement with the same emphasis as other statements. Many of the Reformed who argue vehemently that St. Paul says something else, will ignore this completely.

The Bible alone dogma appears to be practiced more like - some passages of the Bible alone.

“So the Old Testament was given by God with us in mind, as the quotations above show; how much more the New Testament! Indeed, the New Testament era is one characterised by further revelation in which the Word of God is being inscripturated. Thus Peter classes Paul’s writings with ‘the other Scriptures’ (2 Pet 3:16). If we accept Augustine’s dictum: ‘The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed’ we can see that the New completes the Old and gives us a completed canon of faith. At the same time we must not under-estimate the New Testament warnings of apostasy, and the signs of this already in the first century (cp. Revelation 2 and 3). This underscores the importance of the Word of God in written form and warns against making even early teaching or practices not warranted by Scripture normative for ourselves.”

Bravo. Applause. Thank you for supporting our contention regarding OT and NT.

We’ll make a Catholic out of you yet!!!!

“God is not the author of confusion. nothing can be a rule for faith which contradicts existing revelation (from the article posted). Paul does not contradict Jesus or James unless one is trying to fit a theology backward into scripture.”

Bravo. Applause. We may be closer together than I previously thought.

This is the idea of perseverance that Calvin mangles so badly. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we persevere. It’s not that we take the credit; it’s that if we stumble and fall and don’t get up, we will never finish the journey. If we are predestined to Heaven, then we don’t get the credit for going there.

If we refuse to go there, regardless of the Holy Spirit’s influence, then, we unelect ourselves. And at that point, unless we repent, confess our sins and ask pardon from God, we assume the status of what the Calvinists call the unelect.

The unelect can do no good in God’s eyes? Does that mean that if one practices the Beatitudes that one is automatically one of the elect?

What is the quantitative difference between elect sin and non elect sin?

Very interesting point. There are many people who walk like Christians and talk like Christians and yet fall away. Reformed theology says that they never were, unless they get back up again, and then they are, except that they’ve fallen away, and anyway God’ll get them back before they die, unless they’re not Christians and they never were, in which case God’ll wave them off in their handbasket.

I wonder if the Rev’s. Sharpton and Jackson and Haggard and Swaggart and Jones started out Christian and ceased, or if they ever were, under Reformed thought.

Remain in Christ? I thought that that was a Catholic thing. Isn’t Protestant thought that one must read the Scriptures and come up with a new angle?

There was never a serious intent to return to primitive Christianity. The power and money and ego trips were far too appealing.

POT...CALLING...KETTLE...BLACK

If you'll recall the Reformation started over the greed of Pope Leo wanting to pay for the Vatican castle. He drained the coffers dried and was sucking the people financially dry with his voodoo application of scripture. The Church went along with it. People just had enough with the tax and spend policies of the Pope under the guise of Christianity.

There isn't any heresy of the Reformation. Faith comes from hearing and righteousness is imputed to us-not from works. If anything the Reformers simply handed out the scriptures and told everyone, "If you don't believe us, read it for yourselves." Much of Calvin's writings rely upon the writings of the early church fathers application of scripture. Much of the Church's writings rely upon the writings of Church fathers quoting other Church fathers who quoted others who supposely did something "miraculous". Them's the facts.

While we hear that "The Church must interpret the scriptures", it's rare to see any scriptural interpretation. I'm not even sure if the Church has ever put out a commentary. One would think had they done that they might have paid for the Vatican.

“If that is so, then why the problem with each believer going to the scriptures alone with the Holy Spirit for understanding of the truth?”

By their fruits shall ye know them. We have tens of thousands of different interpretations mostly contradicting each other either in small ways or in large ways. We have resurrected heresies masquerading as Christian beliefs.

And besides, how do you know that that is the Holy Spirit? It could be the brightest angel whispering in your ear. Even satan can quote scripture for his own purposes.

Those works were not accepted by the early Church as being inspired. It doesn't mean they are necessarily devoid of truth, just that they are not authoritative.

I would disagree that there is any truth in them, especially the forgery the "Protoevangelium of James". If someone writes something 120+ yrs after the fact, trying to deceive others into believing that authorship was by one of the Apostles its clear that there was an agenda pervading the entire document.

Many of the Reformed who argue vehemently that St. Paul says something else, will ignore this completely.

Somewhere along the way, most of women's head coverings became fashion accessories, something of pride. At that point, the spirit of that teaching was not just lost, it was perverted. Competition between women about who's Easter bonnet is the prettiest or marketing pretty chapel veils may get women's heads covered, following the letter of the law, but they violate the spirit of the teaching.

Not to make the, "they do it too" argument, but "Reformed" discipline in this area was only slightly earlier than RCC discipline in the matter. I remember tracking bird's nest hats from my place in the choir loft, well into the late 1960's. By 1976, when I was married in a Catholic church, the Kennedy effect seemed to have become universal.

The Bible alone dogma appears to be practiced more like - some passages of the Bible alone.

We try to not confuse form & function.

The Bible says that we WERE all made in His image. Not that we will be. That is black and white.

We were not ALL made in the image of God. Adam was made in God's image. Seth was made in Adam's image-fallen man.

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Man is a fallen creature incapable of doing good.

Rom 3:10-11 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

That is black and white.

These are not divisions these are united in doctrine in communion with one another. They are one church just as Alexandria, Antioch, Constainople, and Jerusalem were.

They don’t for instance have one branch with gay priest another with gay marriages a third which sends charity money to fund 3rd world abortions etc. Protestantism has always been a process of convincing Christians to beleive non Christian things and dividing them into groups to advance Satans cause, and has worked to the tune of tens of thousands of heresies.

And protestants inspired by Satan divided that body creating churches which deny baptism, deny the eucharist, support abortion for the poor, support the death penalty and offesive wars, support gay leadership and blessing gay unions. 20,000 strong are these divisions Stan has made, and they’ve worked hard to make Europe so apostate that it’s ripe for taking by the Muslims, who IMO, practice Satanism in it’s purest form.

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.