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.

How do you know that a born again / elect / believer / whatever cannot fall away permanently?

The Bible says so:

Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.

Eph 4:30 : And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

2 Cor 1:21-22 : 21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

There are others, but I think these make the point.

The “certitude of salvation” is a creation of the Gnostics which predated Christ, by the way.

Is that a theological term? I wasn't using it as such. I just thought that was a way to say "assurance", which comes right from the Bible.

FK: "By “ordain” I mean “that which is set into God’s plan”. Many times, our sin DOES fit into God’s plan so it is ordained."

Many times? Either God foreordains everything or He does not.

That's a fair point. I'm just not absolutely certain on the scope of God's plan. For example, I don't know if it is part of God's plan that I put on my left shoe first this morning. It very well might have been, but I am unsure. I think there are verses that lean toward this, so I would never argue against it. So, what I AM sure of is that God ordains everything that is a part of His plan.

What are the standards that you use to judge the Bible by?

There should be serious scholarship behind it conducted by people I have reason to trust. For example, the preface to my NIV says that it was put together by "over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts". Later it says: "The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias". That sounds pretty good to me. :)

But many of the Reformed brethren have breathlessly informed me that ALL of the Bible is equally valid and important. I’m not sure that dismissing portions of it out of hand would fit with the sainted Calvin’s sonorous pronouncements.

We don't recognize that the RCC gets to decide what the Bible is. God decided through His Church. And as WM very aptly noted, Jesus never accepted the Deuterocanonicals either:

Luke 24:44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.

FK: “And when God “executes” :) His justice, that is not evil, that is just.”

Justice? Why, FK? Why not love or mercy? Do you suppose that the “Justice” of God is like that of some Middle Ages absolute Ruler? Is God’s “Justice” something we can describe or understand?

I see God's justice as defining itself. So, when God wipes out thousands of people in the OT, that is justice because God did it. No human would have the power or wisdom to approximate it. I would agree that sometimes God's justice does not appear to match human justice, but it is not for us to question. If God had said "The wages of sin is a slap on the wrist", then I would have been fine with that as God's justice. But He obviously said something very different. :)

It sounds as if God to the Western mind kills to satisfy some sort of divine “pride”, more something to be saved from than saved by.

I've seen several post this and I have never understood it. What would pride have to do with God carrying out an earned sentence?

One could conclude that even though we can be “saved” from the wrath of this baleful “god” by the horrible death of His Son, wouldn’t it be better just to conclude that this god doesn’t even exist? Isn’t that what much of the West has done?

I may not be following you, but the problem would seem to be what does one then do with the scriptures? To eliminate the God who metes our justice is to eliminate the God revealed to us in the OT. I don't see that as a good option. :)

By "ordain" I mean "that which is set into God's plan". Many times, our sin DOES fit into God's plan so it is ordained.

AH, so does God actively ensure that man is sinning so that His Plan is fulfilled? Or does God know what will happen? We have discussed simultaneity before and how God views time. Your explanation makes it sound like it is God's plan that man sins, and that God ENSURES that man does it so that His plan is fulfilled.

This is a key question, I think.

There is no one qualified to judge God, so I don't understand the suggestion.

If man is worthless and has no free will - because we "all" know that God can only be supreme if man is absolutely crushed and is nothing - then WHOSE deeds will be judged, as the Bible suggests over and over? God or man? When the Bible says that "man will be judged based on his deeds", does the Bible actually mean that God will be, because HE has "ordained" it and ensured that man sins - and man cannot do anything BUT sin?

I am beginning to see that the "reformed" theology has an incredible problem here... God is responsible for sin... While you may deny it, clearly, that is what you seem to believe. That is where this heresy takes you. In your attempt to overstate God's sovereignty, you end up accusing God of planning and ordaining sin...

FK, you are better than that. Run, do not walk, from this ridiculous theology.

Regards

Post-salvation sanctification vs. salvation as process. Could you tell me how you distinguish salvation and sanctification? I don't really distinguish the process of being saved from the process of being sanctified. While there certainly is an "initial point of justification" or "salvation", that is only the beginning of "being saved". We are being saved when we are being sanctified.

I wrote: Where does Paul say that they are immune from returning to that style of life?

I associate myself with BD's most learned response. :)

His response ASSUMES that a person will CONTINUE in Christ. Must I repeat 1 John 5:12 again? Ephesians 2 is presuming that the Christian will continue - and will be saved in the end. It doesn't say that one CANNOT fall away, that is jumping to conclusions.

It is righteous to preach against backsliding.

Why? You are "already" going to heaven, no matter what you do. God has "already ordained it", so no matter what you do, good or bad, you are going to heaven... Yes, I know, it is a twisted theology, but that is the essence of it.

OK, I'll bite. Where does he say that? BD already showed that Paul said that can't happen

I disagree with BD's explanation.

Paul is dressing down the Corinthians who are causing dissension. He ends with them in 1 Cor 3:17, as we have previously discussed. He then continues all the way up to 1 Cor 6, again addressing Christians. Paul is not writing to pagans, friend, but to Christians who need some help. Perhaps you should sit back and read the first 6 chapters of 1 Cor.

Regards

“If God had said “The wages of sin is a slap on the wrist”, then I would have been fine with that as God’s justice.”

FK, why do the wages of sin being death necessaily require that God is the author of death? Is God’s justice death? I can see God allowing it as merciful, but just? Why isn’t this concept the parent of atheism?

“To eliminate the God who metes our justice is to eliminate the God revealed to us in the OT. I don’t see that as a good option. :)”

I’ll grant you that it will eliminate a Western misconception of the God revealed to us in the OT. Personally, I see that as a good thing. :)

AH, so does God actively ensure that man is sinning so that His Plan is fulfilled? Or does God know what will happen?

Both. One evidence is that the timing of events as they happen just cannot be by coincidence. It's TOO perfect to randomly happen by chance events controlled by a myriad of humans. God is not just a spectator, He's actually in the game.

Your explanation makes it sound like it is God's plan that man sins, and that God ENSURES that man does it so that His plan is fulfilled.

God put the tree in the Garden and then He let the serpent in. He also did not give Adam and Eve the wisdom to know how to combat the serpent. What do you suppose God was thinking when He did this?

If man is worthless and has no free will - ...

If man was worthless, then I can't imagine why God would have created him. We don't say man is worthless.

When the Bible says that "man will be judged based on his deeds", does the Bible actually mean that God will be, because HE has "ordained" it and ensured that man sins - and man cannot do anything BUT sin?

No, when we are judged for reward it will be based on our deeds. In addition, only the lost are trapped in sin. The elect have been set free and are free to do good. God, of course, ordains what that good is going to be.

In your attempt to overstate God's sovereignty, you end up accusing God of planning and ordaining sin...

I didn't know it was possible to overstate God's sovereignty. We know already that you limit it by having man be in control of his own destiny, and that man performs many of the functions reserved only to God. Are there other ways God's sovereignty is limited according to Roman Catholicism?

And do you doubt Christ came to establish the "new covenant?"...Respectfully, Kosta, I think you might be a very unorthodox Orthodox

Respectfully, Dr. E, you are being a wee bit theatrical, imo.

I would say no such thing. The New Covenant is announced in the Old Testament and it is intended for Hebrew Israel. Surely, Isaiah did not think of "extended" Israel when he wrote that.

I do not "doubt" the Old Testament. I just don't interpret it the same way as you do.

I could level the same inquiry to you: do you doubt what Christ taught? If not, then you would know that He specifically forbade that the Apostles go to the Gentiles and Samaritans. Nothing in His ministry was ever intended for anything but Hebrew Israel.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel [Mat 10:5-6]

In fact, the Gospels tell us that he was SENT for the lost sheep of Israel and not for Gentiles.

I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel

The Apostles take the Gospels to the Gentiles after the Jews reject it. They really had no choice; it was do or die (out)! The Book of Acts is very clear on that.

When Christ says that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets he was not speaking of the Gentiles who were not under the law.

Nothing in Christ's ministry can be construed to be anything but a correct interpretation of the Old Testament. Nothing can be construed to be directed at anything but the Jews, for the Jews and Judaism.

The extended Israel idea is a letter-day evolution of which even the Apostles were amazed and knew NOTHING of.

Ezek 36:26 : I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh

Our heart is not our nature, FK.

2 Cor 5:17 : Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation ; the old has gone, the new has come!

That is true to the extent that we now believe in Christ as our God and Savior of the world, whereas before we didn't. It doesn't mean our nature has been made perfect and pure!

We still sin and are drawn to sin. We still have a sinful nature. If we are a new creation than this new creation is anything but perfect! That would mean that God makes imperfections! Did He replace one defective nature with another?

No, sir. We are not righteous and perfect in our nature, but in God's eyes — the way Job was. He knows that true Christinas are (in their hearts) imitating and immersing all their mind and soul in Chirst. In doing so, them make themselves acceptable to God. By His grace, of course. Never by our nature.

[BD's] response ASSUMES that a person will CONTINUE in Christ. Must I repeat 1 John 5:12 again?

How does 1 John 5:12 help you here? All that says is that one who has the Son has life, and one who doesn't, doesn't. There is no implication at all that it is possible to lose the Son once one has Him. As I recently posted, these verses, however, all say that once one is saved he will not become unsaved:

Eph 1:11-14 : 11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession — to the praise of his glory.

Eph 4:30 : And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

I suppose only in the Apostolic faith is God's guarantee not a guarantee.

FK: "It is righteous to preach against backsliding."

Why? You are "already" going to heaven, no matter what you do. God has "already ordained it", so no matter what you do, good or bad, you are going to heaven...

Because the Bible says so:

Rom 6:1-4 : 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means ! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

God's plan for all His children is to live a new life, not fall back into backsliding. We do not live our lives as Christians in order to earn enough points to get into Heaven. Regardless that we are already saved and have assurance, God still has great plans for all of us while on this earth. We recognize that and want to serve.

You need to reread the gospels.

I thnk you need to heed your own advice, BD. There is plenty of evidence that He did not address His ministry to the Gentiles and that He Himself states that He was sent for th lost sheep of Israel.

The expressions relating to the "world" come form His Apostles but nto from Him.

Then you throw in this: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

The word "nations" in this case in Greek as well a sin Hebrew is used interchangeably to mean Gentiles as well as Hebrews/Jews. They both actually mean "unbelievers," and even in the OT some Hebrew tribes are mentioned as "Gentiles."

There is no proof whatsoever that the vsere is meant for the Gentiles. Nor are we absolutely sure that this verse was there in the original, because we don't have the original!

And knowing that multiple verses have been added by Christan scribes makes that possibility very real because it is exactly what was NEEDED to carry the Gospel to the Greek and save the Church from destruction in Israel. The Book of Acts attests to that (Acts 13:46).

Mat 26:28, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

The New Tesament follows the the New Covenant. That was predicted and mentioned in the Old Testament and under the Old Covenant. Isaiah does not hint that the New Covenant will be monopolized by the Gentiles. The New Covenant was prophesied for the Jews.

I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days [Heb 8:10]

No Gentiles there.

"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4

Sorry, Mary could have said "No." So many others do.

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" -- 1 Corinthians 4:7

Taken in your context, it follows that those who are evil received that from God as well.

It's that angry, spiteful, evil Protestant "god" again!

FK, why do the wages of sin being death necessarily require that God is the author of death?

Well, the sin is against God, and someone has to carry out the punishment ("pay the wages"). Who else would do it if not God? Plus, this is clearly how the text of the OT portrays it. God took lives, a lot of them.

Is God’s justice death?

Sometimes, yes. Jesus also demonstrated God's justice, such as with the adulterous woman, so it isn't always about death.

Why isn’t this concept the parent of atheism?

I don't know why it would be. An all powerful God creates His creatures and they are His to do with as He pleases. Fortunately, He decided to save some, and all who come to Him will be saved. At the same time the wicked will be judged for their sins and forever separated from God. I don't see how any of this would lead to atheism.

FK: “To eliminate the God who metes our justice is to eliminate the God revealed to us in the OT. I don’t see that as a good option. :)”

I’ll grant you that it will eliminate a Western misconception of the God revealed to us in the OT. Personally, I see that as a good thing. :)

So, do I take it that you don't think God did all those things the text says He did in the OT?

To eliminate the God who metes our justice is to eliminate the God revealed to us in the OT

The OT is not a full revelation and can only be understood through the lens of the Gospels in aprticular and New Testament in general. And the Gospels tell us that God is not how the Jews experienced Him. Nor did God appear on earth as men would have expected the King of Kings. That's because our idea of God is warped in human qualities. And that includes spiteful angry tyrant that the OT sometimes portrays. God is not the author of death--it is contrary to His nature, wich is Life. So, the only thing we can conclude is that either God did not smite all these people or that the Jews misinterpreted what happened and "credited" God out of their own ignorance.

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.