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 ... 9,661-9,6809,681-9,7009,701-9,720 ... 13,161-13,166 next last
To: OLD REGGIE
I consider that a very insulting question, not worthy of an answer

"...is your God the same God that a five point Calvinist worships?"

Yes, but they have such a defective view of Him that it's often difficult to tell.

"... It would also be appreciated if you detail how much you know, really know."

About what?

9,681 posted on 10/23/2007 8:59:38 AM PDT by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9677 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you so very much for your beautiful testimony and those glorious Scriptures!

Salvation does not "take a village" nor a particular church nor even a particular sacrament. It only takes Jesus Christ dying on and being resurrected from the cross.

Precisely. It is God's doing alone:

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:13

Not by the will of man ...

To God be the glory, not man.


9,682 posted on 10/23/2007 9:26:18 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9680 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; SeaHawkFan
The word "may" does not appear in Greek.

I repeat:

"Usage of "may" in Scripture to be corrected by kosta50."

I was merely pointing out the nearly 100 instances of the word "may" in the RSV (rather typical of modern English language Bibles) which you must correct in order to write a Bible which satisfys you. Of course this is only the beginning.

Unfortunately there are very few Greek Language experts in the English speaking countries of the world thus it is necessary for us to rely on translations by so-called experts.

9,683 posted on 10/23/2007 9:35:15 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9642 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
Reggie, The problem is not knowing what 'cockamamie' is. The problem is whether you are attacking another person's logic, calling it "cockamamie" or not. There is no indication that you are being sarcastic regarding the Pope's use of the word "worship" or whether you are attacking another person's logic. As to "being included in the ignorant", when did I say you were ignorant? You say you are being sarcastic, but where is the justification for the comment?

Becoming more confused...


Sorry, I can't help you. Maybe experience in the real world will help.
9,684 posted on 10/23/2007 9:41:01 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9641 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
About what?

Thanks. You have answered my question.
9,685 posted on 10/23/2007 9:44:34 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9681 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; HarleyD; kosta50; jo kus

“So,why do you diminish that by by saying God creates people destined for hell.”

How then do you explain a verse like this?

1Ki 20:42 And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of [thy] hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.


9,686 posted on 10/23/2007 9:55:05 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9679 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; blue-duncan; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; irishtenor; Alamo-Girl; Uncle Chip; ...
Does the individual place his sole trust in the complete, perfect work of Christ, with no effort of his own? If so, then they are elect. Doesn't matter what church they belong to.

Amen! Which is why Protestants can say with Scriptural certainty that no church on earth is perfect; only Christ is perfect.

"Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." -- 1 Colossians 5:6-7


"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." -- 1 Colossians 13:12

Some churches preach more truth than others, while some have been led so far astray they practically deny Christ's accomplished, one-time atonement of His sheep. Indeed, some churches actually put stumblingblocks in the way of God's word, and vainly insert mediators between God and men other than Jesus Christ alone.

"And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." -- Rev. 18:2

But we have His promise none of His sheep will be lost and eventually they will know their salvation is due to Jesus Christ alone.

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:26-29


9,687 posted on 10/23/2007 10:04:19 AM 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 9674 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; blue-duncan; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; wmfights; irishtenor; Alamo-Girl; ...
Does the individual place his sole trust in the complete, perfect work of Christ, with no effort of his own? If so, then they are elect. Doesn't matter what church they belong to.

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you WILL BE saved.

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

9,688 posted on 10/23/2007 10:14:21 AM PDT by xzins (If you will just agree to the murdering of your children, we can win the presidency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9687 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Thanks. You have answered my question.

Happy to help...Oh wait, was that one of the famous OR pretentious swipes meant to distract the simple minded from you inability or unwillingness to answer, even the simplest question.

9,689 posted on 10/23/2007 10:14:26 AM PDT by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9685 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Here's the question mark I left off the end of my last post, I'm sure you noticed. ?
9,690 posted on 10/23/2007 10:21:13 AM PDT by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9689 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan; kosta50; jo kus
BD , You offered 1 King 20:42 from KJV (or some other modern Bible)

More and more ...I see possible errors in the KJV

1 Kings 20:42 from the Douay-Rheims Bible says this....

“And Jonathan said to David: Go in peace: and let all stand that we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying: The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever.”

This resembles nothing like what the KJV says!

Perhaps Kosta can shed light on how the KJV could have translated this the way they did?

9,691 posted on 10/23/2007 10:30:38 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9686 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; kosta50; jo kus

You are in 1 Samuel 20:42.


9,692 posted on 10/23/2007 10:44:20 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9691 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Actually, it does get more clear than that, God be praised...

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:18

Elected by God; redeemed by Christ; sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

A perfect plan.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6


9,693 posted on 10/23/2007 10:45:26 AM 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 9688 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
lol. Kings...Samuel...

What's in a name? lol.

9,694 posted on 10/23/2007 10:48:00 AM 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 9692 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

The sky is blue.

:>)


9,695 posted on 10/23/2007 10:52:25 AM PDT by xzins (If you will just agree to the murdering of your children, we can win the presidency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9693 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
Here's the question mark I left off the end of my last post, I'm sure you noticed. ?

I'm afraid I didn't get past "distract the simple minded from you inability or unwillingness..."
9,696 posted on 10/23/2007 10:53:46 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9690 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And why is the sky blue? Because God ordained that the sky be blue.

8~)

9,697 posted on 10/23/2007 11:01:54 AM 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 9695 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I thought you’d argue with me.

:>)

You didn’t.


9,698 posted on 10/23/2007 11:03:11 AM PDT by xzins (If you will just agree to the murdering of your children, we can win the presidency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9697 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Religion Moderator
Sorry, I can't help you. Maybe experience in the real world will help.

I now see why you are on this thread. Don't bother me anymore, please.

9,699 posted on 10/23/2007 11:05:45 AM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9684 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; Alamo-Girl; blue-duncan; Frumanchu; HarleyD; wmfights; Forest Keeper; Uncle Chip; ...
Does it trouble you there are churches with no Sacrament of Holy Eucharist and no Sacrament of Reconciliation?

There is no "sacrament of reconciliation," and I am unaware of any Christian denomination that does not observe the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

This question seems familiar, though. Have we learned that some churches don't partake of the Lord's Supper?

9,700 posted on 10/23/2007 11:14:39 AM 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 9590 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 9,661-9,6809,681-9,7009,701-9,720 ... 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