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.

But some He picks to make not hate Him and not reek vengence on. Would that be correct in your view?

Rom 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Absolutely. It depends on God's mercy.

"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."

Amen! Rousing verses from Mark, aren't they? I like Mark. Strongly-worded and energetic.

"But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things." -- Mark 13:23

Imagine that. Christ has foretold "all things" to us by His words and deeds. How cool is that? 8~)

Some men will always hate God. This is the reason

John 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved

God destroyed men in the flood, and He allowed the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of Israel, because their hearts were always evil and they did evil constantly.

Job 28:28

And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Men love evil. Look around to see if it's not true. They choose it over God

The reason that God hated Esau was that Esau rejected the greatest gift that God ever bestowed upon the human race. He didn't "just hate him for no reason". After that, Esau's descendents did evil on a greater and greater scale and are still at it

Well, one must remember that we are born with the original sin of Adam - which requires baptism; then there is one’s own sins of commission and omission.

Infant baptism removes the original sin of Adam; the Holy Spirit is then introduced to start working in the baby so that at the age of reason, the child or adult may understand and have the faith so that the confirmation of the original baptism is confessed by the child or adult.

One must not mix up original sin and temporal sin.

The infant is brought to God by proxy. His future repentence is up to him.

If there is nothing that we can do to attain salvation, then how is perseverence required? What happens if a member of the Reformed Elect pull up a spiritual LaZBoy? If you say that that person was never an elect and this is proof, then that is at least consistent. So then, we are left with no exterior evidence of whether a person is of the elect or not. Hmm, does that mean that one of the elect will find it impossible to not persevere? Robot slave again?

Oh, we don’t believe that we merit salvation on our own. We just believe all those verses which spell out our commanded actions once we have the Holy Spirit after baptism. We have it possible for mankind to attain Heaven because of the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Otherwise, unless He individually brings us to Heaven, such as the thief on the adjoining cross, or Elijah, then we wouldn’t be able attain everlasting life.

So you would agree with these conclusions:

- Men hate God. God reeks vengences on those who hate Him simply because God is pure and people hate pure things.

- But some He picks to make not hate Him and not reek vengence on.

I'd probably change "reek vengence" to "wreck vengeance."

The rest is a little crude, but basically Scriptural.

There is no criteria, we can know beforehand, to determine whether He picks us or not.

Can we change God's predetermined plan for His creation, ordained by God in less than the blink of an eye from before the foundation of the world?

If He's God and if He knows everything because He "declared the end from the beginning," then no, men cannot alter God's purpose in creating exactly as He determined.

God may teach us using "if/then," but He acts according to "then/when."

The point you're missing is that no one who wants to believe in Christ is prevented from believing and being saved. But only those men who first have been regenerated by God will want to believe. And those names were determined by God. It was God, not you nor me, who decided to number us among His children.

Election is determined by the Creator and not by the creature's prudent ability to choose well.

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11

As you can see, any disagreement you have is not with me, but with God's word.

We’ve been through the Esau lines before on this thread.

But, let’s take it with a Reformed view. God hates Esau because Esau has done things that God preprogrammed him to do. Isn’t that crazy?

Now, we know that God isn’t crazy. Could a certain doctrine be wrong?

Because we are all fallen through Adam, I believe that our depraved natures find evil attractive. After all, the devil appears as an angel of light. The difference is in that the elect will come to the Light, Jesus, and let their evil be reproved. How it works that some are elect and not others, I don’t know, but the bible says we were always figured into the Plan of Salvation, and that’s good enough for me.

Genesis 25:32

And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

25:33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Looks to me like Esau being the carnal man that he was could only see what was in it for him. He certainly could have accepted the birthright and accepted Christ (for that is the test and all men judge themselves with how they respond to Christ).

We can also see from Malachi 1, that Esau, or Edom, (and all those they represent) stubbornly refuse to let God guide them. They want to do it their way. They don't accept God and they don't learn from their mistakes.

Malachi 1:4

Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

So in conclusion we have:

- God picks some not to reek (wreck) vengence on, and the others he wrecks vengence on.

- There is no difference between the two groups - those God chooses to wreck and those He does spares - that is discernable to us beforehand. You’re either zapped or not zapped, period.

Much like Thor tossing thunderbolts at his whim. With the new caveat: “but we all deserve it.”

This is why I compare this view of God to the capricous gods of yore, pre-convenant Gods. And even further back, before even the idea of placating gods with sacrifices. That would be contra-monergism as well.

So you can see why monergism draws the criticism of fatalism and a lottery-like view of God’s grace or wrath.

Jesus’s good news about Our Father was new, not a couple of steps backward.

thanks for your replies...

If you were on trial and you discovered that the judge is partial would that put you at ease?

Yes, if I found out that the judge was partial to running a tight ship in his courtroom, unlike a Judge Ito.

If you found out that the jury is partial, would you claim that justice is served?

Yes, if I found out that the jury was partial to delivering a carefully considered, fair, and unbiased verdict, unlike the jury nullification that took place at the OJ trial.

If a witness was believed to be partial would you say that is good?

Yes, as long as I understood what it was. Every witness is going to be partial to something. Many times it is to something relevant in a trial. There is nothing wrong with that, it should be understood and weighed accordingly. Friends, co-workers, relatives, etc. testify about each other every single day. In the sunlight there is no problem. There are a multitude of ways to convey identical information. So, one can be partial to his friend, and at the same time be completely truthful on the witness stand.

Imagine you got busted on a bum rap and at trial your lawyer called your priest as a character witness. Of course you wouldn't ask him to lie, so what would he do? :) He would answer truthfully and (with partiality to you) say every nice thing he could think of to say about you. I say there is nothing wrong with this. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with being partial. It depends on what one is being partial TO.

He certainly could have accepted the birthright and accepted Christ (for that is the test and all men judge themselves with how they respond to Christ).

AMEN!

And to answer your question further, Mark, no, God is not crazy. Nor are those who understand it is by His grace alone we become "spiritually-minded."

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." -- Luke 8:10

"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." -- Romans 8:6-9

Do men or God determine where the Holy Spirit resides?

God picks some not to reek (wreck) vengence on, and the others he wrecks vengence on.

Again, I'd go for the "wreck vengeance," over "wreck vengence" but that's just me.

There is no difference between the two groups - those God chooses to wreck and those He does spares - that is discernable to us beforehand.

"Before" what?

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.