Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

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.

[MarkBsnr]

You are wrong about the date. The Bible was assembled in the 300’s and ratified by a number of councils. And you may want to check out the dates of the Jewish ratification.

Numerous Church Fathers quoted the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, while some did not. Jerome appears to have objected to most of the deuterocanonical parts of Scripture. But he did include all seven books in his Latin translation of Scripture, known as the Vulgate. Ultimately, he recognized that the Church alone had the authority to determine the canon.

Since there was disagreement between some Church Fathers, it became obvious that no individual could provide an infallible list of inspired books. The bottom line: “We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”

Since it is unreasonable to expect every person to read all of the books of antiquity and judge for himself if they are inspired, the question boils down to whose authority is to be trusted in this matter. One must either trust a rabbinical school that rejected the New Testament 60 years after Christ established a Church, or one must trust the Church he established.

Which deserves our trust? Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]—that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

[xzins]

Council of Trent, 1500's.

The OT canon accepted by Jesus (Abel to Zechariah) was the Masoretic. That is why it was accepted.

The New Testament canon had the requirement of apostolic "signature." Once established as authentically related to one with apostolic authority, the apostolic authority of the apostles' own words would be unquestionable.

Luther is right. It is a good thing that the early church was able to do historical background checks on the various books and determine which were validly apostolic.

[xzins]

Apostolic succession is the teaching that the true church is identified by the inerrant tracing of bishops back to Peter. If a church can't inerrantly trace bishops back to Peter, then that is not the true church.

(Aside: As this article points out, there are gaps even in the RCC record that have been filled with no certainty at all. Also, obviously, the church in Rome predated Peter. Paul's letter to the Romans was written ca. 57AD and Paul does not greet Peter in its closing, even though he greets everyone else. Also, the Acts shows Paul's arrival at Rome, and again there is no presence of Peter. In short, the Roman church PRE-DATES Peter.)

But, we are looking for evidence a requirement to inerrantly trace bishops.

Matt. 10:1,40 - Jesus declares to His apostles, “he who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent Me.” There is an indication here that Jesus sent his Apostles to spread the Good news.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ’s authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. Christ's apostles had Christ's support

Luke 9:1; 10:19 - Jesus gives the apostles authority over the natural and the supernatural (diseases, demons, serpents, and scorpions).The apostles are empowered

Luke 10:16 - Jesus tells His apostles, “he who hears you, hears Me.” Christ's apostles have Christ's support.

Luke 22:29 - the Father gives the kingdom to the Son, and the Son gives the kingdom to the apostles. the apostles were designated leaders of the church

Num 16:28 - the Father’s authority is transferred to Moses. Moses had authority

John 5:30 - similarly, Jesus as man does nothing of His own authority, but He acts under the authority of the Father.Jesus had authority

John 7:16-17 - Jesus as man states that His authority is not His own, but from God. Jesus had God's authority

John 8:28 - Jesus says He does nothing on His own authority. Jesus had God's authority

John 12:49 - The father’s authority is transferred to the Son. Jesus had God's authority

John 13:20 - Jesus says, “he who receives anyone who I send, receives Me.” Apostles are to be supported

John 14:10 - Jesus says the Word He speaks is not His own authority, but from the Father. Jesus has God's authority

John 16:14-15 - what the Father has, the Son has, and the Son gives it to the apostles. the apostles are authorized by Christ

John 17:18; 20:21 - as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the apostles. the apostles are authorized by Christ

Acts 20:28 - the apostles are shepherds and guardians appointed by the Holy Spirit / 1 Peter 2:25 - the apostles are authorized by Christ

Jer. 23:1-8; Ezek. 34:1-10 - the shepherds must shepherd the sheep, or they will be held accountable by God. shepherds have a job

Eph. 2:20 - the Christian faith is built upon the foundation of the apostles. the apostles are the founders

Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:9,14 - the words “household,” “Bride of the Lamb,” the “new Jerusalem” the apostles are founders

II. Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination

Acts 1:15-26 - Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Peter initiates action to replace Judas as per prophecy in Psalms

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. Matthias is the replacement

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” the replacement had to have been an eyewitness

Acts 6:6 - church deacons were set aside for their work by laying on of hands

Acts 9:17-19 - Paul is healed and filled with the Holy Spirit at the laying on of Ananias' hands

Acts 13:3 - Paul & Barnabas are set aside for missionary work by they laying on of hands of Antiochan prophets & teachers

Acts 14:23 - Paul & Barnabas lay hands on newly selected elders

Acts 15:22-27 - messengers selected by Jerusalem to convey results of Council of Jerusalem

This is where I am so far. I'll have to get to the other verses later.

To this point, we have a couple of things in evidence:

1. The apostles were approved by Jesus.

2. Church officers are inducted by a laying on of hands.

To this point we have not demonstrated that the true church must be able to inerrantly trace back it's bishop's ordination to Peter.

We have demonstrated at a minimum that churches would do well to officially appoint their leaders. At a maximum the scriptures have suggested that laying on of hands is a pattern of the early church.

[wmfights]

So, you can do whatever you want, sin all you want, all your sins are taken care off until you die? How deceptively attractive that satanic theology is!

The indwelling Holy Spirit convicts you of those sins. If you are truly being led by the Holy Spirit you will change.

Yes, of course, Christ died for our sins, so that we can live the rest of our lives in repentance and avoidance of evil. he made our salvation possible.

One thing I do like about you K. is you do not hesitate to state what your beliefs are. While the EOC and RCC believe salvation is possible through JESUS, Baptist's believe it is a completed act through JESUS.

In the explanation of the LORD'S SUPPER you posted I can't help notice how the EOC and RCC have recreated the sacrificial system that the Jews had. You have created a special religious caste and created a new barrier (curtain separating the congregation from the Holy of Holies) just as the Jews had in the OLD COVENANT.

[MarkBsnr]

Luther is wrong and so are you. The Council of Trent merely affirmed what was accepted in the 300s.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church—her leadership, faithful people—guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing.

[OLD REGGIE]

You are working with a false dichotomy, as though if God does something, then man had nothing to do with it. God did choose Matthias (here you are closer to the truth than Alamo-Girl). But God used Peter and the rest of the Eleven to do it.

And Paul?

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[OLD REGGIE]

computer hiccup

:) But your point was well made both times.

[xzins]

The Church did not discover the books. They weren’t lost.

The various churches had history on the various books and those that measured up to the apostolic support standard were accepted and those that weren’t were not accepted.

Once the words of the apostles are established, they have authority over the church.

After all, do you want to argue with the Apostle John about what Jesus did or did not say?

[OLD REGGIE]

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church which was at Antioch prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene and Manahen who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
13:2. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.
13:3. Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

I don't quite get your point. Are you saying the men who "imposed their hands upon Paul and Barnabas" made them Apostles? Or, are you agreeing with me that the only "top" is the Lord?

[narses]

Once the words of the apostles are established, they have authority over the church.

Hence Apostolic Succession - one of the Marks of the True Church.

[OLD REGGIE]

then why don’t you stop pinging me?!??

Courtesy. Forum protocol. I know this is foreign to you.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hypostasis to the Greek philosophers was the essence of a substance or its underlying reality. Ousia was being or substance. When you use the term Hypostatis, I gather that you mean three Hypostases in one Ousia. Correct me if I am wrong.

I assert here that man’s attempt to understand the Persons of God through his own mortal reasoning has proliferated many doctrines and traditions - and caused Christians to turn their backs on one another, some accusing those who do not agree with them as being heretics.

And further that – like xzins’ beetles - men valuing their own reasoning above all else including God Himself - pull each other down struggling to be at the top of the heap instead of simply spreading their wings and flying away.

The dispute over the Nicene Creed, the Filioque, is a classic example of poisonous disagreements over the Persons of God – indeed, the history of the Nicene creed is an example. Each beetle struggles to be on top.

Truly I wish Christians would stop anthropomorphizing God and accept all that is written in the words of God without demanding and/or contriving an explanation that makes sense to himself according to whatever he considers to be reasonable.

Here is some of what God the Father has revealed of His Person, His only begotten Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit:

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 8:9

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. – Deut 6:4-5

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. – James 2:19

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. - John 1:1-4

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; - I Timothy 2:5

[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all. – Ephesians 4:4-6

And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and [there were] seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. – Revelation 4:5

And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. – Revelation 5:6

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; - Hebrews 1:3

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Col 1:15-20

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. – Rev 1:8

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. – Rev 21:6

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. - Exodus 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

Only believe. It really is that simple.

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: - Luke 24:25

To God be the glory!

[P-Marlowe]

Luther's point was that if you are truly born again and saved by Grace, then you can sin all you want simply because you won't want to sin at all.

And if we sin at all, those sins have already been redeemed by the Blood of Christ.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand? Why do they wish to put the burden of their salvation upon their own shoulders?

[narses]

Deliberate and serious sin separates us from God, it is a rejection of Him. Why does that confound you? Absent contrition and confession and a true purpose of returning to God and His Laws, that free will rejection of Him (serious sin) leaves us bound for Hell.

[OLD REGGIE]

Sound like ordination to me...but then you might not kow the difference. :)

I know when I am being insulted by a self described "intellectual superior" but, no matter, sounds like you are saying Paul was ordained by his equals or, ugh ugh, his organizational inferiors. So much for Apostolic Succession.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your kind words of encouragement! Indeed, I first recognized you as my brother in Christ by your fruits - and since then, have enjoyed glorious fellowship with you in Christ.

[lawdave]

Apostolic succession is not an idea even mentioned in scripture.

You are wrong. In Acts, the first task of the Apostle's was to choose a successor to Judas.They chose Mathias. You can look it up.

[xzins]

See post #923

[Alamo-Girl]

Beautiful essay-sermon, dear brother in Christ! Thank you!