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 have a very Pauline, 1 Corinthians view of Holy Communion:

In the same way as the ancient Israelis participated in the sacrifice on the altar, so we participate.

We must recognize the sacrifice on the altar.

1 Co 10: 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

1 Co 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

"Just think of it as bread and wine under the appearance of crackers and grape juice."

You forgot the 11th commandment that was dropped with the other four by Moses when he tripped coming off the mountain. It starts:

"Yet here, Laertes! Aboard, aboard for shame! The wind sits in the shoulder of your sail,.....

"This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man...."

The morning I got married I was super nervous and nauseous. My sweet mother, the nurse who knows everything and would never play a practical joke on me at a time like that, gives me this glass of warm Welch's Grape Juice and says "here, drink this; it's just like wine and will settle your stomach". It took almost an hour to clean the purple juice off of all the fixtures in the bathroom and all that that sweet little old lady could do was cry "please son, stop wretching do loud. I can't breathe your making me laugh so hard."

KJV says this for 3 Kings 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”

Douay Rheims says this...

“And he said to him: Thus saith the Lord. Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man WORTHY of death, thy life shall be for his life, and thy people for his people.”(3 Kings 20:42)

There is a big difference in being “appointed” to destruction(KJV) and being “worthy” of death(Douay Rheims)!

This says nothing of God creating a person for hell!

Here is another question...

Why does the KJV say the same thing in 1 Kings 20:42 as it does in 3 Kings 20:42? It obviously makes no sense.

Here is What KJV says in 1 Kings 20:42

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. King James Version 1611, 1769

and of course Douay Rheims correctly reads...

“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.”
1 kings 20:42

“Our God is a God of love and wonder.” Agreed! So,why do you diminish that by by saying God creates people destined for hell.

Because it's true. God created Adam knowing he would fall. It isn't that God is diminished in my soteriology; it is that you've raised man up to a position of which he is not entitled to.

You need to ask yourself why God would put these(hell bound) people on earth in the first place and not be able to blame God for putting them there?

I'm not blaming God for anything. I'm simply stating things as they exists and they exist for a purpose.

Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.

To deny God DIDN'T assigned the human race to hell is folly. He created the Garden, put the tree, gave the command, knew what Adam would do, knew what judgment He would past, created hell, and then left for the day. It's a little bit silly in my mind to say that God hope upon hope that Adam would make the right choice. There is only one LOGICAL choice for this and that choice is that it was all planned to send man to hell. After all, it isn't as if God didn't know.

If God wanted all men to be saved, He would NEVER have placed the tree in the garden. Man had free will to name the animals. Why didn't he rebel against that command and yet he rebelled against the fruit? There is a reason.

There is a purpose for all of this. It's just not what you happen to believe it is.

Tell me, if someone makes a poor decision and ends up in the eternal torment of hell, will God leave them there? Does this sound like a just God-70 years to make a decision and an eternity of torment for making the wrong choice? YIKES!!!

You seem to think everyone wants to go heaven. I believe everyone unwittingly wants to go to hell.

It's a little bit silly in my mind to say that God hope upon hope that Adam would make the right choice.

God "willed" Adam to make the right choice. Adam of free will Chose not to follow the will of God

You gave this Scripture....

""Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.""

It does NOT say that God "created" them wicked.Again, they become wicked of their own doing,their own free will.Not God's will! Yes, God created them, and yes God will even use their wickedness to prove that love is stronger then wickedness

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,Who "will" have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for ALL, a testimony in due times.(1 Tim 2:3-6)Douay Reims

You seem to think everyone wants to go heaven. I believe everyone unwittingly wants to go to hell.

This whole statement is ridiculous!

Good Night!

I wish you a Blessed evening!

God "willed" Adam to make the right choice. Adam of free will Chose not to follow the will of God...It does NOT say that God "created" them wicked

And neither did I. Man was good until the Law came and we died. One law, one transgression, our transgression. It was by choice but it was NOT "free". God knew the outcome and He made Adam just that way.

Adam was no better or worst than any one of us. We all would have made the exact same choice that Adam made. I wouldn't be so smug to think that I would not have made the same choice Adam made, and that is EXACTLY what you're saying. If 100,000,000,000 people were lined up by the tree and offered the fruit, 100,000,000,000 would have taken it. Adam was, after all, perfect man.

As children of Adam we differ in that we want to do what is evil. God has given Adam's race over to the our hearts desire. Our minds are corrupted with Adam's sin. We are not "utterly" depraved but we cannot help but do the things that are not pleasing to God.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,Who "will" have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You are misinterpreting this verse. If God TRULY wanted all men saved don't you think He could do it? Don't you think He could zap everyone like He did Paul on the Damascus Road? God calls to everyone but no one will ever come. He has to intervene in our lives and zap us like Paul only in different ways.

1Ti 2:4 - it is his ordaining, purposing, and determining will, which is never resisted, so as to be frustrated, but is always accomplished: the will of God, the sovereign and unfrustrable will of God, has the governing sway and influence in the salvation of men; it rises from it, and is according to it; and all who are saved God wills they should be saved; nor are any saved, but whom he wills they should be saved: hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved, unless there are two contrary wills in God; for there are some who were before ordained by him unto condemnation, and are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction; and it is his will concerning some, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned; nor is it fact that all are saved, as they would be, if it was his will they should; for who hath resisted his will? but there is a world of ungodly men that will be condemned, and who will go into everlasting punishment: rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti_2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners; and therefore all are to be prayed for, even all sorts of men, because God will have all men, or all sorts of men, saved; and particularly the Gentiles may be designed, who are sometimes called the world, the whole world, and every creature; whom God would have saved, as well as the Jews, and therefore Heathens, and Heathen magistrates, were to be prayed for as well as Jewish ones. Moreover, the same persons God would have saved, he would have also come to the knowledge of the truth - John Gill

I am sorry you find this ridiculous. This is, after all, the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Not all this "man just need to make the right decision" nonsense. None of that is supported by scripture and is heresy. It total denies the Holy Spirit's ability to change and transform lives.

I wrote: Paul's primary purpose is to preach the Gospel. Paul then continues that he DID baptize people. As it turns out, he question his own memory.

You responded: That isn't what the text state.

Come on, Harley, I don't have time for these games..

"And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" 1 Cor 1:16-17

That is not to say that baptism wasn't important in the early church. It just emphasized that it wasn't necessary to be baptized into the Church.

Dead wrong. The Christians talk about baptism and the eucharist over and over again. Paul is not claiming that baptism is not important. That is your theology imposing itself on the text again. While I agree that Paul is not desiring to create factions where people follow different leaders, I don't see that Paul says that "baptism is unimportant". As a matter of fact, I see the OPPOSITE. People consider baptism as entrance into the community, thus, they took pride in WHO baptized them, since it WAS important!

What b-d and I neglected to also include in addition to these "election" verses are the number of verses where God specifically stated "You did not choose me but I chose you" or "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:". There are verses after verses that says we are chosen of God. The term "you", "man" or "him" is not addressed to a community but it is personalized.

Chosen to the community, Harley. You have added nothing new. Of course God has predestined individuals to the Church WITHOUT considering their merits. Most Catholics hold to that (although Molinarism, an acceptable alternative, says that God foresaw an individual's merits in determining selection.)

My commment stands. There are no Scriptures that tell us that an individual has been predestined to eternal glory. That is a fantasy, the "wide path", wishful thinking for people who do not desire to "die to self". Naturally, when Jesus says we must die to ourselves to become His followers, He was telling us that those in the community must NOW BECOME REAL FOLLOWERS of Christ. Saying "Lord, Lord" isn't enough, Harley.

Therefore some people can saved but not elected.

The term "elect" means predestined into God's community on earth. However, God can certainly foreknow and provide for a pagan to be saved. God's Spirit will blow where He wills. The term you use "saved", to me in this context, means a pagan can repent of his sins and have the Spirit enter into Him to transform Him. While this is the exception to the rule, it is not beyond the realm of the Spirit's abilities.

I can only trust our Lord Jesus that He is bearing fruit in me according to the measure of faith He has given me. May any fruit that I do bear bring glory to the Father.

So that means that God doesn't love you??? The bible clearly tells us that He does.

We are not righteous.

We can be after our regeneration begins, Harley. You are stuck in the old creation, the old man. Our charecteristics and abilities CHANGE because God effects within us a NEW CREATION. A NEW MAN. Thus, we ARE capable of loving our neighbor and become righteous.

And naturally, you would be disagreeing with the many verses that call men righteous... This is not surprising, since I have found that Calvinists, even when approached with the clear text, will not listen to God's Word over their theology. Even when the Bible says that God and man work together - the Calvinist WILL NOT HAVE IT!

So much for the Sovereign God. It is an abstract idea in the head of a Calvinist, an idea that doesn't exist in reality.

Regards

Exactly right! As Adam was, we are, unless and until God regenerates our hearts and renews our minds to the truth of Christ risen.

And you are correct. To presume man can do this either on his own or even with a little help from God "denies the Holy Spirit's ability to change and transform lives."

Synergism denies not only the Holy Spirit's "ability," but the Holy Spirit's exact purpose, according to the will of God.

"And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:11

God elects; Christ redeems; the Holy Spirit sanctifies; man receives unmerited mercy and in doing so, God is glorified.

Of course it applies to the Messiah. He was predestined and elected in His humanity as were we all

My point was that being the chosen was a God-given purpose and task, not an admisison to an elitist club. As somelone once remarked: "first the cross, then the crown." Christians in general, and Reformed Christians in particular, have forgotten that being God's chosen people was never supposed to be easy. In fact, it was God's only-begotten Son who suffered the most for being the chief among them.

The Jews unfaithfulness does not nullify the promises of God

I certainly never suggested that, because I don't believe that human unfaithfulness nullifies God's promises. God is not the one who falls away from us, but rather we are the ones who fall away from Him through our ingratitude, self-love, arrogance and pride.

As I said, I was not attempting to argue for the correctness of the premises, only to show that the conclusion was validly drawn from the premises

I understand. And I was questioning the premises, not the logic. Logic is a "working model" which, no different than other working models, works whether the premises are true or imaginary. Instead of "real" factors one can use soemthing as unreal as letter A. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. Nothing "true" or "real" in any of this. Therefore, logic does not prove if something is true/real. Logical approach to proving something is naked rationalism; logic itself provies nothing to be either true or false; only logically consistent or inconsistent.

I apologize. I was not in a happy place yesterday

I am sorry. I hope you are in a happier place today.

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.