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.

PM: So all the verses where Jesus talks about hell and judgment and outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth, are all of those “Satanic Verses”?

Are you suggesting that Jesus never said any of that stuff?

Is that part of the scripture you don’t accept?

MB: I accept Scripture, including Matt 25. NAB:
1
1 “Then 2 the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2
3 Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3
The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them,
4
but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps.
5
Since the bridegroom was long delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6
At midnight, there was a cry, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7
Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps.
8
The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’
9
But the wise ones replied, ‘No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.’
10
While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked.
11
4 Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’
12
But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’
13
Therefore, stay awake, 5 for you know neither the day nor the hour.
14
6 “It will be as when a man who was going on a journey 7 called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them.
15
To one he gave five talents; 8 to another, two; to a third, one—to each according to his ability. Then he went away. Immediately
16
the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five.
17
Likewise, the one who received two made another two.
18
9 But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money.
19
After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them.
20
The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. 10 He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.’
21
His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’
22
(Then) the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, ‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.’
23
His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’
24
Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter;
25
so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’
26
His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! 11 So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter?
27
Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return?
28
Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.
29
12 For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
30
13 And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’
31
14 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
18 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Sounds like we are responsible for our own weeping and gnashing of teeth by accepting the Holy Spirit and performing the works that we are directed to do by Jesus.

me: Knowing Christ is the only proof a person will ever need

you: Personally, yes, but that's not a "proof." It's a conviction based on experience, and we know that personal experience can be a fallacy. Appealing to "inner reality" as outer proof is like confusing dreams with wakefulness. It borders on pathology, even psychosis.

If a conviction is all a person has, then he is not yet filled by the Holy Spirit and therefore, does not yet know Christ. It takes time:

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make [you that ye shall] neither [be] barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. – 2 Peter 1:5-8

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. – Phl 2:12

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:15-19

Moreover, spiritual reality is eternal whereas physical reality is not. It is not a “pathology” or “psychosis” to be more alive in the spiritual realm than the physical realm – it is what happens when we trust Him and follow Him:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. – Matthew 24:35

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. – Galatians 2:20

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit... For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his... – excerpts from Romans 8

Your excerpting of my post bled into your reply. Here it is more clearly:

me: It is God's will that His words be sown (parable of the sower.) It is not His will to satisfy the demand for signs or wisdom (reason)- both of which are "proofs"

you: Funny that +Paul should re-write the history of God, who used signs and miracles to convince people He was really God!

Do you not realize that God could have made everything perfect from the beginning? That the new heaven and new earth could be this one?

Do you not realize that Jesus Christ could have healed everyone at once, raised all of the dead, revealed Himself in power and glory and set up the new heaven and new earth at that time?

Do you not realize that God could have taken the Hebrews directly from Egypt to the Promised Land without stopping at the Red Sea?

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. – Matthew 3:9

There is no creature – whether spiritual or physical – who can deny Him when He appears in power and glory – and that includes all of us who have come to know Him. We will not - indeed we cannot - refrain from praising Him!

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; - Phl 2:10

And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. – Luke 19:40

Everything has been unfolding from the beginning according to God’s will. The Final Cause is the new family Christ establishes in the new heaven and the new earth. (last two chapters of Revelation)

Signs and miracles of God are punctuated throughout history – but how many miss the miracle of Creation itself – both spiritual and physical - as a sign of God!

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3

Sadly, men only consider as “signs” those things which are not ordinary to their own perceptions and reasoning.

As to why God has not yet “wrapped it all up.”

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. – 2 Peter 3:9

You continued:

It so easy to just cut out that part with which you disagree and find verses that support your view. Anyone can do that. It's self-serving, A-G, and that's why text-proofing is no proof at all. It all defaults to me-me-me, my experience, my inner knowledge, my reality...solipsism, self-worship, Gnosticism, maybe even worse.

Of a Truth, the power in any of my posts are not my words but the words of God which I quote.

Neverthless, if you are so greatly offended by my quoting the words of God, then ignore me – or ignore those parts of my posts.

If they were so convincing, then why did Israel reject Christ? If Peter's shadow could cure the sick, why would the Church fail in Israel. If the Church was to fail in Israel, why did Christ commission his disciples not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans, but only tot he 12 tribes of Israel? Why does Paul tell the Jews that they were obliged to preach to them first but now, seeing that they didn't hear the word, the apostles will turn to the Gentiles? (no kidding, where else?) What was the purpose of preaching to the Jews knowing they would not buy into it?

So that seeing they would not see and hearing they would not hear and neither would they understand so that they would turn to God and He would heal them. This is God fulfilling His own words recorded in the Song of Moses:

They have moved me to jealousy with [that which is] not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with [those which are] not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. – Deuteronomy 32:21

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. – Romans 11:11

You continued:

me: Passers-by demanded proofs of Christ

you: That's because people believe God is in control! They were applying human logic to God! They were judging God by human standards of control and human justice. No one could imagine that God is gentle and humble. The Reformed don't believe it to this day. They expect a partial tyrant, benevolent to some, and damning to others.

Truly, those who deign to understand God by reasoning are anthropomorphizing Him and will end up imagining a small ‘god’ their puny minds can understand.

The book of Job stands as evidence – especially chapters 38 to the end when Job repents for speaking words without knowledge.

The only way one can know God is personally, by His revelation in the indwelling Spirit who reveals Jesus Christ, personally, to us.

You must be born again. There is no alternative.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. – John 3:6-7

Praise God!!!

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.