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.

It is simply because God uses particular people to show His power in the world. He may raise up a tyrant like Pharaoh, or a godly man like Moses. But it is all so that God might be glorified and His name declared in all the earth.

Amen.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe in Him for everlasting life. 1 Timothy 1:15-16.

God wants to reveal Himself and He chooses the method.

His sacrifice applies to all whom are willing to come to Him, follow Him, and imitate Him.

Then what happens when an infant is baptized? I thought that was when the sacrifice was applied, i.e. before there is belief or will. I remember there being some kind of a proxy thing, but am not sure if you are talking about that above.

FK: "But ALL of you [Catholic/Orthodox] say that future sins are NOT covered by Christ's work."

They are, but we must repent of those sins in order for them to be forgiven. That's why we have the sacrament of confession.

OK, so it looks like you are saying that Christ's "effect" on sin is the same throughout. It allows us to ask for forgiveness for sins, and as infants this happens by proxy?

If you believe your sins are forgiven without repenting of them, then repentance becomes an "empty ritual," which may explain why the Protestants may not have such "guilty conscience", but rather consider themselves righteous in their justification that no amount of wrongdoing can affect.

Actually, none of this is correct. :) True repentance is required in order to become a child of God. We disagree on which sins that repentance applies to. You say it is ridiculous to be able to repent of future sins and we say it is ridiculous to repent and believe by proxy. :) And, we still know that God commands confession and repentance even after salvation. It is part of required perseverance, so it is not an "empty ritual".

Second, a guilty conscience does not come from one's view on the salvific nature of repentance. It comes from the indwelling Holy Spirit. The Spirit moves all believers to want to come back to Him, and giving a guilty conscience is one motivational tool.

Third, and I admit this may be splitting hairs with what you said, but just to be clear, we do not consider ourselves righteous in our justification. We consider that we are justified because of CHRIST'S righteousness, not our own. Therefore, we are "declared" righteous, but through no merit of our own.

I notice that Paul was left blind for 3 days after arriving at Damascus. Could this be a technique to drive home the extent of the change wrought by God upon him?

Acts 9:17

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

Paul apparently spent many years "receiving meat". He himself says 3 years in Galatians 1, and some scholars say 13.

He had to work studying the gospel after receiving the Holy Spirit, just like the rest of us. It's a revelation from Christ first and foremost, but then we must do our part.

Thanks for your effort and thoughtful reply. There still is no answer for why, in Calvinism, God chooses you to love and hates your brother.

And as you may guess, this view of God reinforces my comparison of Stockholm Syndrome:

God selects one over the other is simply to display His righteousness.... God uses particular people to show His power in the world...God chose us because we were foolish things in this world.

But you're not less foolish than your brother whom God hates. But you were picked, not him - so God could display His power. To me it harkens back to the view of the capricious gods of long long ago.

In this theory, I can see survivor's guilt occurring, but love of the tyrant, no... I'm not saying it can't and doesn't occur, but that the theology works against it.

And I find this particularly contradictory in Calvinism:

This is not to minimize the fact of God's love for His children.

Some of His children. Others? No. For reasons that we know not.

This partiality, seemingly random to us, is, I see now, critical to TULIP's predestination theology and ties in again with the errors about God's immutability.

thanks again for your reply.

All of these people were baptized before they received the Holy Spirit, not after.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these [Cornelius]should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Act 16:14-15 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

But not all. Some received the spirit before hand. Cornelius and Lydia are two examples.

I wouldn't try to make too much out of the Holy Spirit timeline in Acts. You will find it rather confusing as this was the beginning of the church. Rather I think it is reasonable to assume that if you have faith to be baptized, then you must have faith before being baptized.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

God chooses you to love and hates your brother. And as you may guess, this view of God reinforces my comparison of Stockholm Syndrome:

But you're not less foolish than your brother whom God hates.

God does not hate men. Men hate God. God reeks vengences on those who hate Him simply because God is pure and people hate pure things.

That is a very distinct difference.

To me it harkens back to the view of the capricious gods of long long ago.

Some of His children. Others? No. For reasons that we know not.

Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Your comment on [Zech. 3:1-2] is not in line with general commentary.

I don't know what consists of "general commentary". I just read the words. In the OT there is also this:

Ezek 28:11-19 : 11 The word of the Lord came to me: 12 "Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: "'You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. 14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. 16 Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you, O guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones. 17 Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; I made a spectacle of you before kings. 18 By your many sins and dishonest trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. So I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. 19 All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.'"

Again, just reading the words, it seems pretty clear that a mere man is not being referenced. There are plenty of commentators who would agree with me. There is also:

Isa 14:12-15 : 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. KJV

I suppose we could argue over whether satan is the King of Babylon. There is much literature on both sides. I am pointing out that evidence is there and was available to the righteous to recognize satan as evil. I am still a little confused though as to what would "possess" :) you to sort of stick up for satan and portray him as a loyal servant of God. Why would it make you more comfortable if satan really isn't such a bad guy? It would hurt my Christianity because then I would not think that I am under constant attack by an evil enemy. If that was true, then I would be less motivated to clothe myself in Christ and put on His full armor, etc.

Your recitation was interesting, but a simple definition of "elect" is all I was asking for. You're describing them. I asked for a definition of them. Who are "God's elect?"

first, they (the elect) were freely chosen by God's goodness (Romans 11:5-7, 28)

On that we agree.

secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephesians 4:17).

Now that's funny because nowhere in Scripture does it say men MUST show they are "choice men." Instead, over and over Scripture says God does the choosing and thus, the elect WILL act righteously by the operation of the Holy Spirit within them, according to God's will for them.

Let's see what your example of Ephesians 4:17 actually says...

"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind," -- Eph. 4:17

Sounds like Paul is explaining what comes next in the elect's sanctification -- they will walk as a "new man" which "after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" while their "minds are renewed in the spirit" (Eph. 4:23-24).

Paul further underscores God's will by introducing himself in the first verse of Ephesians 4 as...

"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called"

So while Paul and all the writers of Scripture encourage the faithful to labor in love and persevere in patience and hope, we understand that all who do so are "prisoners of the Lord," who by His will walk according to His grace.

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13

There are only two alternatives.

Either men work by their own abilities and desires to please God, and in so doing, accumulate God's good will through their own good works...

Or God changes the sinner's heart from stone to flesh and wipes the scales from his eyes to give him new sight and opens his dull ears to the truth, all according to His will for His creation, exactly as He purposed it to be from before the foundation of the world.

"And he (the Lord) said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:9-10

Monergism vs. synergism. Scripture comes down on the side of monergism -- to God belongs ALL the credit, ALL the glory because He has "declared the end from the beginning."

"Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?" -- Isaiah 43:13

Even though men will fuss and fume that they are the captains of their own ships and in control of their own lives, the Bible tells us otherwise. And to rest confidently in that fact is a gift of grace in itself.

then we run the risk that some of them who could be saved will not be.

We evangelize, yes, but that is a gift to us from God. We can't save anyone. All whom God wills to be saved, will be saved.

John 15:16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you"

Only the elect will be saved and gathered for glory on the Day of Judgment. Mark 13:27

And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

FK: "I have seen the question asked a hundred times: "do you believe that Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins, past, present, and future?" The answer from your side is always "No"."

Are you sure? I do not recall any Catholic or Orthodox saying that. You are confusing "Jesus paying for all of our sins" and "Jesus actions applied to the individual". Jesus died for all sins, past, present and future of ALL men!

That could be. My mindset was in the context of losing one's salvation. If that is possible, then Christ's death did not pay to cover the sin that caused that, i.e. at that moment the person is headed to hell so the debt is not paid. A debt is either paid in full, or it is not. Based on that, I said what I said. I have long been of the mind that Apostolics believed that Christ's death only applied to original sin, and that every subsequent serious sin had to be separately handled through absolution. However, since this is the second (or third, depending on Kolo's answer to my response to him) recent post challenging that supposition, I am happy to recalibrate my understanding. :)

IF Christ's work takes away all sins without man's repentance, then why does Jesus intercede TODAY for us?

We say that repentance is required also, but we do not see it as being piecemeal. Christ died once and for all for all of our sins, including future sins. Likewise, we repent once and for all of all of our sins, including future sins.

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.