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.

“There is only so much that we can take “just because,” or at least there is only so much that I am willing to take. If you know the explanation, or if you have Patristic writings on this subject showing that this was really the same Christ speaking, I would be very happy. But, as it is, I don’t see Christ in Hosea 13 or in much of the OT hwere cruelty is attributed to Him.”

I got nearly 200 hits when I ran “Hosea” in Logos Library System, but only 2 when I ran Hosea 13. Of those, one was relevant, from Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, chap. XLVII, “Of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Sending of the Apostles, and the Ascension of the Saviour into Heaven”, wherein Lacatanius writes,

“After these things they took His body down from the cross, and buried it in a tomb. But on the third day, before daybreak, there was an earthquake, and the stone with which they had closed the sepulchre was removed, and He arose. But nothing was found in the sepulchre except the clothes in which the body had been wrapped. But that He would rise again on the third day, the prophets had long ago foretold. David, in the xvth Psalm: “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption.” Likewise Hosea: This my Son is wise, therefore He shall not stay long in the anguish of His sons: and I will ransom Him from the hand of the grave. Where is thy judgment, O death, where is thy sting? ”The same again says: “After two days He will revive us on the third day.”

That’s it. Its not much help with finding an explanation for the wrathful God of the OT in comparison to Christ. I know virtually nothing about Lactantius except that I think he was from North Africa and ended his days attached to Constantine I’s court at Constantinople. I remember reading him in Latin in college and thinking how beautiful his Latin was. I don’t remember being impressed with his theology.

You know, it occurs to me that you may have been right when you wrote that perhaps God, or Hosea, were misunderstood. If you read the first few chapters of “On the Incarnation” by +Athanasius the Great, it seems as if he is saying that God tried all sorts of manifestations to make the Jews come to Him but in the end, the “burning bush” business didn’t cut it so “God became man.” Something to think about anyway.

One more thing regarding male "seed" proponents and I will stop. Pythagoras (6th c. BC) poprosed a method of human inheirtance which inlcuded male and female contributions. While this may appear to be and advanced foreknowledge of what we know about it today, on closer crutiny it is obviously not.

Namly, Pythagoras taught that man contributes all essential characteristics whereas the woman contributed only metrial substrate [Wikipedia and a number of Internet sources].

Curiously, the idea that male sperm contained a fully formed human (just as it was believed that a seed of a tree contained a fully formed miniscule tree) was the predominant belieef until the 17th century! Some early microscopic observers reported "seeing" small humnas inside the sperm (homonculus).

By the 18th century the sides reversed and ovism became the favored theory, shifting everything to the woman, and the male was believed to simply provide the "energy" needed for growth.

It was the discovery of cell division, Mendalian genetics, and the discovery female eggs that advanced our understanding of conception and inhertance, in the 19th century and onward.

Thank you, Kolo, for looking up the topic. Unfortunately, the effect of your rather informative post brought more disappointment rather than joy.

Let's look at what Lactantius wrote:

But that He would rise again on the third day, the prophets had long ago foretold. David, in the xvth Psalm: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption"

First, this is verse 10, Psalm xvi, not xv. Unfortunately, the Septuagint (LXX) completely differs from the Hebrew Bible (MT)

Septuagint [LXX] vs Hebrew Bible [MT] on Ps 6.10
because You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. [LXX] *	The Lord has hearkened to my supplication; the Lord has accepted my prayer. [MT}

*Note: in this instance the Protestant Old Testament takes the Septuagint version rather than the Hebrew version.

King James Version, Ps 6.10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption

_______________

Second, "This my Son is wise" is (Hosea 13: 13, LXX). Unfortunately, it is irreconcilable with the Masoretic Text. And it's about unrepentant Ehraim, not Christ.

Septuagint [LXX] vs Hebrew Bible [MT] on Hosea 13:13
Pains as of a woman in travail shall come upon him; he is your wise son, because he shall not stay in the destruction of your children. [LXX]	The pains of childbirth come upon him;He is not a wise son, for it is not the time that he should delay at the opening of the womb. [MT]

You will also notice that the word "son" in Lactantius' modern rendition is capitalized. We know that neither Hebrew nor Greek used lower-case letters and that this is a Christianized rendition of the text to give the impression Hosea was "prophesying" about Christ.

The whole Lactanius' sentence asserting that the "prophets foretold" that Christ would rise on the third day is a collage of different verses which may meet the purpose but not the context of such a claim. In other words, it's a concoction of typical cut-and-paste variety presented as a single "prophesy" (in retrospect to boot).

"After two days He will revive us on the third day.”

This is Hosea 6:2, not Hosea 13, Kolo, as your search engine suggests, and it's also out of context. The very beginning of Hosea 6 makes it clear that this is not about Christ, the Son of God.

  1"Come, let us return to the LORD
         For He has torn us, but He will heal us;
         He has wounded us, but He will bandage us.
    2"He will revive us after two days;
         He will raise us up on the third day,
         That we may live before Him.

Here, Hosea is using Prophet Jeremiah (50:4), predicting that the Israelites will come seeking God (again). Obviously this has no bearing or similitude to Christ. He never had a reason to return to God (i.e. repent)!

Interestingly, +Paul borrows from Hosea's verse 2, associating this verse with Christ

4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, [1 Cor 15:4]

Notice the "accoridng to the Scriptures." It's in the scriptures alright, but it's out of context because the whole chapter is about unfaithful Israelites and not even something close to the perfectly obedient Christ. +Paul used it because it suited his purpose, and then he give it the "according to the Scriptures" to make it authoritative, but in reality it is is an out of context construct for effect.

IT: It’s all because of sin. The Good news is that Jesus takes away our sin. Praise God.

Yes, not only can we say that Christ came as a lion, but in this way we can also so say that He came as a lamb (talk about the lion and the lamb lying down together, huh?) Here is something from +John Chrysostom's Homily XLVI on the Gospel of St. John (a homily which I found of great interest, as it discusses two major points of contention between modern Christians: Free will and the Eucharist):

For wherever they see the Lord’s blood, devils flee, and Angels run together. This blood poured forth washed clean all the world; many wise sayings did the blessed Paul utter concerning it in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This blood cleansed the secret place, and the Holy of Holies. And if the type of it had such great power in the temple of the Hebrews, and in the midst of Egypt, when smeared on the door-posts, much more the reality. This blood sanctified the golden altar; without it the high priest dared not enter into the secret place. This blood consecrated priests, this in types cleansed sins. But if it had such power in the types, if death so shuddered at the shadow, tell me how would it not have dreaded the very reality? This blood is the salvation of our souls, by this the soul is washed, by this is beautiful, by this is inflamed, this causeth our understanding to be more bright than fire, and our soul more beaming than gold; this blood was poured forth, and made heaven accessible.

Kosta: The final chapter 14 of Hosea repeats the same theme repeated throughout the bible: repent and your sins will be forgiven. The fundamental difference, however, between the Old and the New Testaments is how God brings people to repentence. It's like night and day.

It sure seems that way. But maybe that's what the Fathers meant when they talked about the "shadow" of the fullness to come. I don't know. But one thing I find striking: The history of the Church is full of stories of martyrs who, when given the choice between renouncing their faith and facing a horrible death (like the kind we keep reading about in the OT), chose to stand firm and face that death, while continuing to sing hymns to God's glory. Reflecting on such great faith truly and utterly humbles me. Their suffering was Christ's suffering, and His unending life is their unending life, by the great mystery of His grace.

Zounds, Kosta, thanks for the research! It was a bit more than I was expecting. :)

Indirect evidence of the Hebrew belief that it was man's "seed" and woman's "soil" is given in the bible in the story of Onan, which is used as the basis for prohibition of onanism or masturbation because it represents "destruction of the seed."

Some may read it that way, but I've always heard that it was more about Onan's refusal to procrate. The story wasn't really about masturbation anyway; it was early withdrawl.

The fact that some Greek philosophers postulated male and female "seeds" and their mixing is no different than some who postulated the existence of atoms (indivisible particles) that make up matter, or who have been remarkably right, 500 years before Christ on other things, such as the fact that our genetic material is combined to give a new human being (mixing). But they were not biblical beliefs.

Yes, the "atomic theory" goes back at least to Democritus. Of course, all this was more "natural philosophy" than empirical science. Now, there certainly was a sort of proto-empiricism starting to develop by the time of the Hellenist period (though this wasn't until after old Democritus' time as far as I know), but they didn't really have any way to test their more "profound" hypotheses.

Even today, there's still a lot that we just don't know for sure, and we have to rely a great deal on extrapolation. Unfortunately, there seems to be a pervasive attitude among modern man that someday we'll "know it all." Perhaps there are no finite bounds on our understanding or growth in knowledge; but either way, God is not finite. In fact, in mathematics we can speak of a whole order of infinities, but none is the largest. God alone is uncontained, and this defies understanding.

It sure seems that way. But maybe that's what the Fathers meant when they talked about the "shadow" of the fullness to come

That's precisely what I am driving at. You see the same phenomenon in the various churches mentioned in +Paul's Epistles, as with various prophets telling Israelites that they need to come back to God; being the "elect" is not something you cannot lose (contrary to what our Reformed friends are saying). They just didn't "get it."

But, in that case, why was God using so many sdifferent approaches before making the ultimate Sacrifice, when He must have known they would fail?

It's like the Big Flood, when God "repented" for having made man because mankind turned out to be so wicked. Hello? Are we surprised? Was God caught off guard? Our reformed friedns will tlel us, oh no, he did it intentionally because He is using sin as an option for His plan.

And what about the Old Covenant, which had to be scrapped for a New One because of Israel's unfaithfulness? It certainly doesn't paint a picture of an all-knowing God, but rather of a trial-and-error, second-guessing "God" waiting on His unruly kids to quiet down. It also doesn't seem to support the Reformed God-is-in-control theology either.

Well, that can be explained with Pascal's wager, in short—what do you have to lose? If it is true, your rewards will be great in heaven; if it is not true, you lost nothing.

Some may read it that way, but I've always heard that it was more about Onan's refusal to procreate

Yes, the intent was wrong, and in Judaism the nature of the intent is essential.

Like hunger, thirst or other basic instincts, sexual desire must be controlled and channeled, satisfied at the proper time, place and manner.

But when sexual desire is satisfied between a husband and wife at the proper time, out of mutual love and desire, sex is a mitzvah.

Even though sex is not purely for procreation, the manner of Onan (in the biblical context) was not a mitzvah and God killed him for that.

You are technically right that Onan's practice did not constitute masturbation in the literal sense (although arguments can be made to the contrary, but there is no need for that here), Judaism explains

Although Onan's act was not truly masturbation, Jewish law takes a very broad view of the acts prohibited by this passage, and forbids any act of ha-sh'cha'tat zerah (destruction of the seed)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a pervasive attitude among modern man that someday we'll "know it all."

That is truly foolishness of the ego that tends to deify man. I guess it feels good while it lasts. There are lots of people on this earth who want to be immortalized for all ages and who truly believe they are very, very important.

Such individuals are rather dangerous and should be restrained, for they are capable of ruining many people's lives for their self-glorifcation.

God alone is uncontained, and this defies understanding

Of course. We call God what caused all this to exist; God was before it all existed. How can God be circumscribed by that which exists?

The history of the Church is full of stories of martyrs who, when given the choice between renouncing their faith and facing a horrible death (like the kind we keep reading about in the OT), chose to stand firm and face that death, while continuing to sing hymns to God's glory. Reflecting on such great faith truly and utterly humbles me. Their suffering was Christ's suffering, and His unending life is their unending life, by the great mystery of His grace

Dear Zero,I thank you for writing this!

This is what Faith in Jesus Christ and the Church is. We must be willing to suffer and welcome persecution even until death.

...And this my friend, is a message that the culture of death and this "self fulfillment" world that we live in wants to keep silent.

Here is a few more writings from Blessed Saint John Chrysostom on Eucharist

"When the word says, 'This is My Body,' be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual. So too with Baptism: the gift is bestowed through what is a tangible thing, water; but what is accomplished is intellectually perceived: the birth and the renewal. If you were incorporeal He would have given you those incorporeal gifts naked; but since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, 'I wish I could see His shape, His appearance, His garments, His sandals.' Only look! You see Him! You touch Him! You eat Him!"

-"Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew" [82,4] 370 A.D.

"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy," 2,4, c. 397 A.D.

"It is not the power of man which makes what is put before us the Body and Blood of Christ, but the power of Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. 'This is My Body,' he says, and these words transform what lies before him."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies on the Treachery of Judas" 1,6; d. 407 A.D.:

"'The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the Blood of Christ?' Very trustworthily and awesomely does he say it. For what he is saying is this: 'What is in the cup is that which flowed from His side, and we partake of it.' He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise Him in song, wondering and astonished at His indescribable Gift, blessing Him because of His having poured out this very Gift so that we might not remain in error, and not only for His having poured out It out, but also for His sharing It with all of us."

-"Homilies on the First Letter to the Corinthians" [24,1] ca. 392 A.D.

I wish you a Blessed Day!

Correction: post 13066 re; Psalm xvi

This is one of those humbling moments when one discovers his own "scribal" error. In referring to Psalm xvi (16), I inadvertently quoted from Ps vi (6) when I used the Tanach version. That is obvious even from the heading I gave. As it turns out, the verses in Ps xvi. are much closer, but not close enough:

because You will not leave my soul in Hades, neither will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.[LXX]

For You shall not forsake my soul to the grave; You shall not allow Your pious one to see the pit.[MT]

The key here is the context. The words used in Greek and Hebrew are sufficiently "loose" to allow either interpretation, but in context—considering this is David writing about himself—it is unlikely that he would call himself the "holy one," or that he was referring to anyone but himself. Anyone who reads the entire Chapter xvi (16) should see that immediately. How did Lactantius connect this to Christ is beyond me.

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.