Posted on 07/26/2007 8:58:12 AM PDT by Frank Sheed
Posted by Mollie
I know this is old news, but a reader sent along another recent story about Pope Benedict XVI saying that non-Roman Catholics are outside the true church. I know we covered this already, but the media treatment of this story has been so horrific that it merits another post. For this week’s installment, let’s look at Steve Maynard’s piece in the Tacoma News Tribune. First the subhead:
Puget Sound-area Protestants and Catholics reach out to each other after a message from the pope prompts shock and dismay.
Shock and dismay, eh? So it’s going to be that kind of story. A caption says “Catholic leaders are downplaying a recent Vatican declaration reaffirming Catholicism as the one true church.” Let’s see if they’re downplaying the Vatican declaration or the media treatment:
Faithful people from Tacoma to Tulsa to Tijuana took notice this month when the Vatican reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church as the only path to salvation. Pope Benedict XVI’s stance that other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches had the potential to divide.
Ugh. It’s amazing that this story comes so late in the news cycle and repeats errors from day one of the coverage. At least it’s good that the reporter has noticed the Vatican simply reaffirmed its teaching. The Vatican has said nothing new here. And given that, it is rather odd that reporters and others continue to be shocked that the Vatican teaches Catholic doctrine. But, most importantly, did the pope say that all non-Catholics are going to hell? Or did he say that Lutherans, Anglicans, Protestants, etc., are not the true church?
A quick note to complain at the unimaginative nature of all the coverage surrounding this Vatican reprint. It’s so easy to take the most obvious point-counterpoint approach. But why not flesh it out a bit more? This supposed shock and awe felt by others seems a bit manufactured (or at least prompted) by the media. I disagree with the document because Lutherans believe the Church is “the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel.” But I’m not upset, shocked or even the least bit surprised at the Vatican’s document.
Is it really newsworthy that Catholics believe themselves to have the right teaching? If they didn’t, why would they retain their teachings? Isn’t everybody in the church body they’re in because they believe it to be right? If I were a reporter covering this and was required to interview people who were upset by this document, I would ask lots of questions about precisely why they were upset. So many mainstream reports just assumed that outrage was the natural response. Why? Is it news that Catholics have different doctrinal views than other Christians? Is it news that these different beliefs, you know, mean something to people who take them seriously? Apparently it is:
The Rev. Dave Brown of Immanuel Presbyterian Church decided it was time to talk with the Catholic priest two blocks away. . . .
“I was bothered by the pope’s statement and felt it was the catalyst to start developing a relationship with him,” Brown said.
Protestants are not the only ones shocked, dismayed and hurt by the Vatican’s statement, said the Rev. David Alger, executive director of Tacoma-based Associated Ministries.
“A lot of Catholics are deeply troubled and are struggling with what this all means,” said Alger, an ordained Presbyterian.
And, in fact, the reporter speaks with precisely one — that’s one (1) — lay Catholic who says he’s upset by the document. In setting up the quote, the reporter says the pope asserted that Catholicism “has a corner on salvation.” Which is not what the document said. The rest of the Catholics interviewed? They all explain how the media misinterpreted it. In fact, one specifically says:
“It’s not a question of saying only Catholics are being saved,” [the Rev. Michael McDermott, pastor of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Tacoma] said.
How the reporter could include this quote while saying the absolute opposite in the opening paragraph rather mystifies me. The priest goes on to explain that Catholics believe they are the only true church in part because of their seven sacraments and a lineage of bishops they believe can be traced back to Jesus’ apostles. But, he says, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Christ isn’t present and operative in other church groups. The fact that Catholic churches accept the baptisms of other Christians should be proof of this to any average religion reporter.
But the reporter seems confused that Catholics and Protestants could have a long history of working together on (non-sacramental) food banks and other social welfare programs while actually believing each other to teach doctrine incorrectly or administer the sacraments incorrectly.
With this much time out from the reissue of that document, I was hoping for more substantive coverage. One great angle, even for a local religion reporter, would be to look at the different views of apostolic succession among Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Protestant churches. Particularly since different views and practices about same were a major point of the Vatican document.
This is the obverse to the thread which has thundered for days. End of story... Kindly move on and thanks, Mollie.
Frank
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
Introduction
The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).
The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.
RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS
First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.
This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council1. Paul VI affirmed it2 and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”3. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention4.
Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?
Response: Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”5, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.6 “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”7.
In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church8, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.9 Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10
Third Question: Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”11.
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”12.
Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?
Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”13, they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”14, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches15.
“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”16. However, 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 churches17.
On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.
Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery19 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense20.
The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.
William Cardinal Levada
Prefect
+ Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
_______________________
1 JOHN XXIII, Address of 11 October 1962: “…The Council…wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, whole and entire, without alteration or deviation…But in the circumstances of our times it is necessary that Christian doctrine in its entirety, and with nothing taken away from it, is accepted with renewed enthusiasm, and serene and tranquil adherence… it is necessary that the very same doctrine be understood more widely and more profoundly as all those who sincerely adhere to the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith strongly desire …it is necessary that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which is owed the obedience of faith, be explored and expounded in the manner required by our times. The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained” : AAS 54 [1962] 791-792.
2 Cf. PAUL VI, Address of 29 September 1963: AAS 55 [1963] 847-852.
3 PAUL VI, Address of 21 November 1964: AAS 56 [1964] 1009-1010.
4 The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is clear from the discussions on the decree Unitatis redintegratio. The Schema of the Decree was proposed on the floor of the Council on 23.9.1964 with a Relatio (Act Syn III/II 296-344). The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians responded on 10.11.1964 to the suggestions sent by Bishops in the months that followed (Act Syn III/VII 11-49). Herewith are quoted four texts from this Expensio modorum concerning this first response.
A) [In Nr. 1 (Prooemium) Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 296, 3-6]
“Pag. 5, lin. 3-6: Videtur etiam Ecclesiam catholicam inter illas Communiones comprehendi, quod falsum esset.
R(espondetur): Hic tantum factum, prout ab omnibus conspicitur, describendum est. Postea clare affirmatur solam Ecclesiam catholicam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi” (Act Syn III/VII 12).
B) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 297-301]
“4 - Expressius dicatur unam solam esse veram Ecclesiam Christi; hanc esse Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam; omnes debere inquirere, ut eam cognoscant et ingrediantur ad salutem obtinendam...
R(espondetur): In toto textu sufficienter effertur, quod postulatur. Ex altera parte non est tacendum etiam in aliis communitatibus christianis inveniri veritates revelatas et elementa ecclesialia”(Act Syn III/VII 15). Cf. also ibid pt. 5.
C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]
“5 - Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam...
R(espondetur): Textus supponit doctrinam in constitutione ‘De Ecclesia’ expositam, ut pag. 5, lin. 24-25 affirmatur” (Act Syn III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium.
D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]
“Pag. 6, lin. 1- 24: Clarius exprimatur unicitas Ecclesiae. Non sufficit inculcare, ut in textu fit, unitatem Ecclesiae.
R(espondetur): a) Ex toto textu clare apparet identificatio Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, ut oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum”.
“Pag. 7, lin. 5: Ecclesia a successoribus Apostolorum cum Petri successore capite gubernata (cf. novum textum ad pag. 6, lin.33-34) explicite dicitur ‘unicus Dei grex’ et lin. 13 ‘una et unica Dei Ecclesia’ “ (Act Syn III/VII).
The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 e 3.1.
5 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.1.
6 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 4.6.
7 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen gentium, 8.2.
8 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.1: AAS 65 [1973] 397; Declaration Dominus Iesus, 16.3: AAS 92 [2000-II] 757-758; Notification on the Book of Leonardo Boff, OFM, “Church: Charism and Power”: AAS 77 [1985] 758-759.
9 Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
10 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
11 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.2.
12 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.4.
13 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS, 85 [1993-II] 848.
14 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.
15 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1; JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 56 f: AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 ff.
16 SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.
17 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
18 Ibid.
19 Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.
20 Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Declaration Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.
Commentary on the Doctrinal Congregation Document
“Dialogue Remains One of the Priorities of the Church”
VATICAN CITY, JULY 11, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of a commentary on the June 29 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The commentary, by the same dicastery, explains the intention of the document that clarifies the Second Vatican Council’s teaching that the Church founded by Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church.”
* * *
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
COMMENTARY ON THE DOCUMENT
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
In this document the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responding to a number of questions concerning the overall vision of the Church which emerged from the dogmatic and ecumenical teachings of the Second Vatican Council. This Council ‘of the Church on the Church’ signalled, according to Paul VI, “a new era for the Church” in which “the true face of the Bride of Christ has been more fully examined and unveiled.”[1] Frequent reference is made to the principle documents of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II and to the interventions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, all of which were inspired by an ever deepening understanding of the Church herself, and many of which were aimed at clarifying the notable outpouring of post-conciliar theology — not all of which was immune from imprecision and error.
This present document is similarly inspired. Precisely because some contemporary theological research has been erroneous, or ambiguous, the Congregation’s intention is to clarify the authentic meaning of certain ecclesiological statements of the Magisterium. For this reason the Congregation has chosen to use the literary genre of Responsa ad quaestiones, which of its nature does not attempt to advance arguments to prove a particular doctrine but rather, by limiting itself to the previous teachings of the Magisterium, sets out only to give a sure and certain response to specific questions.
The first question asks if the Second Vatican Council changed the previously held doctrine on the Church.
The question concerns the significance of what Paul VI described in the above mentioned quotation as ‘the new face’ of the Church offered by Vatican II.
The response, based on the teaching of John XXIII and Paul VI, is very clear: the Second Vatican Council did not intend to change — and therefore has not changed — the previously held doctrine on the Church. It merely deepened this doctrine and articulated it in a more organic way. This is, in fact, what Paul VI said in his discourse promulgating the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen gentium” when he affirmed that the document had not changed traditional doctrine on the Church, but rather “that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.”[2]
There is also a continuity between the doctrine taught by the Council and that of subsequent interventions of the Magisterium which have taken up and deepened this same doctrine, which itself constitutes a development. In this sense, for instance, the Declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Dominus Iesus” merely reaffirmed the conciliar and post-conciliar teachings without adding or taking away anything.
In the post-conciliar period, however, and notwithstanding these clear affirmations, the doctrine of Vatican II has been, and continues to be, the object of erroneous interpretations at variance with traditional Catholic doctrine on the nature of the Church: either seeing in it a ‘Copernican revolution’ or else emphasising some aspects almost to the exclusion of others. In reality the profound intention of the Second Vatican Council was clearly to insert the discourse on the Church within and subordinate to the discourse on God, therefore proposing an ecclesiology which is truly theological. The reception of the teaching of the Council has, however, often obscured this point, relativising it in favour of individual ecclesiological affirmations, and often emphasising specific words or phrases which encourage a partial and unbalanced understanding of this same conciliar doctrine.
Regarding the ecclesiology of “Lumen gentium,” certain key ideas do seem to have entered into ecclesial consciousness: the idea of the People of God, the collegiality of the bishops as a re-evaluation of the ministry of bishops together with the primacy of the Pope, a renewed understanding of the individual Churches within the universal Church, the ecumenical application of the concept of the Church and its openness to other religions; and finally the question of the specific nature of the Catholic Church which is expressed in the formula according to which the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church — of which the creed speaks — subsistit in Ecclesia catholica.
In the following questions this document examines some of these ideas, especially the specific nature of the Catholic Church together with what is implied ecumenically from this understanding.
The second question asks what is meant by the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
When G. Philips wrote that the phrase “subsistit in” had caused ‘rivers of ink’[3] to be spilt, he would probably never have imagined that the discussion would continue for so long or with such intensity as to have provoked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to publish this present document.
This publication, based on the conciliar and postconciliar texts which it cites, reflects the concern of the Congregation to safeguard the unity and unicity of the Church, which would be compromised by the proposal that the Church founded by Christ could have more than one subsistence. If this were the case we would be forced, as the Declaration “Mysterium Ecclesiae” puts it, to imagine “the Church of Christ as the sum total of the Churches or the ecclesial Communities — which are simultaneously differentiated and yet united,” or “to think that the Church of Christ no longer exists today concretely and therefore can only be the object of research for the Churches and the communities.”[4] If this were the case, the Church of Christ would not any longer exist in history, or would exist only in some ideal form emerging either through some future convergence or through the reunification of the diverse sister Churches, to be hoped for and achieved through dialogue.
The Notification of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning a book of Leonardo Boff is even more explicit. In response to Boff’s assertion that the one Church of Christ “is able to subsist in other Christian Churches,” the Notification states that “the Council chose the word “subsistit” specifically to clarify that the true Church has only one “subsistence,” while outside her visible boundaries there are only “elementa Ecclesiae “ which — being elements of the same Church — tend and lead to the Catholic Church.”[5]
The third question asks why the expression “subsistit in” was used rather than the verb “est.”
It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism. In reality, the Council Fathers simply intended to do was to recognise the presence of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ in the non-Catholic Christian communities. It does not follow that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church no longer holds, nor that outside the Catholic Church there is a complete absence of ecclesial elements, a “ churchless void.” What it does mean is that if the expression “subsistit in” is considered in its true context, namely in reference to the Church of Christ “constituted and organised in this world as a society … governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,” then the change from est to subsistit in takes on no particular theological significance of discontinuity with previously held Catholic doctrine.
In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The Council wished to teach that we encounter the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete historical subject in the Catholic Church. The idea, therefore, that subsistence can somehow be multiplied does not express what was intended by the choice of the term “subsistit.” In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ: the Church exists as a unique historical reality.
Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ. Rather it simply signifies a greater openness to the ecumenical desire to recognise truly ecclesial characteristics and dimensions in the Christian communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the “ plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” present in them. Consequently, although there is only one Church which “subsists” in one unique historical subject there are true ecclesial realities which exist beyond its visible boundaries.
The fourth question asks why the Second Vatican Council used the word “Churches” to describe the oriental Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Notwithstanding the explicit affirmation that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church, the recognition that even outside her visible boundaries “many elements of sanctification and of truth”[6] are to be found, implies the ecclesial character — albeit diversified — of the non-Catholic Churches or ecclesial Communities. Neither are these by any means “deprived of significance and importance” in the sense that “the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”[7]
The document considers above all the reality of the oriental Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church and, making reference to various conciliar texts, gives them the title “particular or local Churches” and calls them sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches because they remain united to the Catholic Church through the apostolic succession and the valid celebration of the Eucharist “through which the Church of God is built up and grows in stature.”[8] The Declaration “Dominus Iesus” explicitly calls them “true particular Churches.”[9]
Despite this unequivocal recognition of their “being particular Churches” and of their salvific value, the document could not ignore the wound (defectus) which they suffer specifically in their being particular Churches. For it is because of their Eucharistic vision of the Church, which stresses the reality of the particular Church united in the name of Christ through the celebration of the Eucharist and under the guidance of a Bishop, that they consider themselves complete in their particularity.[10] Consequently, given the fundamental equality among all the particular Churches and among the Bishops which preside over them, they each claim a certain internal autonomy. This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of Primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an “internal constitutive principle” of the very existence of a particular Church.[11] It will, therefore, remain necessary to emphasise that the Primacy of the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, is not seen as something extraneous or merely concurrent with that of Bishops of particular Churches. Rather it must be exercised in service to the unity of the faith and of communion within the limits that proceed from divine law and from the divine and inviolable constitution of the Church contained in revelation.[12]
The fifth question asks why the ecclesial Communities originating from the Reformation are not recognised as ‘Churches.’
In response to this question the document recognises that “the wound is still more profound in those ecclesial communities which have not preserved the apostolic succession or the valid celebration of the eucharist.”[13] For this reason they are “not Churches in the proper sense of the word”[14] but rather, as is attested in conciliar and postconciliar teaching, they are “ecclesial Communities.”[15]
Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress in the communities concerned and even amongst some Catholics, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of “Church” could possibly be attributed to them, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.
In saying this, however, it must be remembered that these said ecclesial Communities, by virtue of the diverse elements of sanctification and truth really present in them, undoubtedly possess as such an ecclesial character and consequently a salvific significance.
This new document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which essentially summarises the teaching of the Council and the post-conciliar magisterium, constitutes a clear reaffirmation of Catholic doctrine on the Church. Apart from dealing with certain unacceptable ideas which have unfortunately spread around the Catholic world, it offers valuable indications for the future of ecumenical dialogue. This dialogue remains one of the priorities of the Catholic Church, as Benedict XVI confirmed in his first message to the Church on April 20, 2005 and on many other occasions, especially during his apostolic visit to Turkey (28.11.06-1.12.06).
However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith. Only in this way will it be able to lead towards the unity of all Christians in “one flock with one shepherd” (Jn 10: 16) and thus heal that wound which prevents the Catholic Church from fully realising her universality within history.
Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase “subsistit in” in order to try to harmonise two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist outwith the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular Churches or in the ecclesial Communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism “Unitatis Redintegratio” introduced the term fullness (unitatis /catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, “nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.”[16] The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners “until it happily arrives at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.”[17] This progress in fullness is rooted in the ongoing process of dynamic union with Christ: “Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians.”[18]
-— -— -—
[1] PAUL VI, Discourse (September 21, 1964): AAS 56 (1964) 1012.
[2] Ibid., 1010.
[3] G. PHILIPS, La Chiesa e il suo mistero nel Concilio Vaticano II , (Milano 1975), I, 111.
[4] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, “Mysterium Ecclesiae,” 1: AAS 65 (1973) 398.
[5] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Notification on the book of Father Leonardo Boff: “The Church: charism and power”: AAS 77 (1985) 758-759. This passage of the Notification, although not formally quoted in the “Responsum”, is found fully cited in the Declaration Dominus Iesus, in note 56 of n. 16.
[6] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, “Lumen gentium,” 8.2.
[7] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” 3.4.
[8] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” 15.1..
[9] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITHI, “Dominus Iesus,” 17: AAS 92 (2000) 758.
[10] Cf. COMITATO MISTO CATTOLICO-ORTODOSSO IN FRANCIA, Il primato romano nella comunione delle Chiese, Conclusioni: in “Enchiridion oecumenicum” (1991), vol. IV, n. 956.
[11] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, “Communionis notio,” n.17: AAS 85 (1993) 849.
[12] Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Considerations on the Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, n. 7 and n. 10, in: L’Osservatore Romano, English Edition, 18 November 1998, 5-6.
[13] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, “Communionis notio,” 17: AAS 85 (1993) 849.
[14] CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, “Dominus Iesus,” 17: AAS 92 (2000) 758.
[15] Cf. SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” 4; John Paul II, “Novo millenio ineuente,” 48: AAS 93 (2001) 301-302.
[16] SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, “Unitatis Redintegratio,” 4.
[17] Ibid, 3.
[18] BENEDICT XVI, “Deus caritas est,” 14: AAS 98 (2006) 228-229.
“Catholics and Protestants still have doctrinal differences”
Duh. That’s why there are Protestants and Catholics. Else, there would be only one Christian religion.
Agreed.
F
“Catholics and Protestants still have doctrinal differences.”
Newsflash?
Who knew?
“Sun rises in east...”
Unless you ask an engineer.
sitetest
Tell me about it. I’m married to a GA Tech graduate. They go around muttering things like “2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.”
bookmark
Thank you.
LOL.
It’s a discovery I made back the first time I went to grad school. I was studying to be a psychologist, and was learning to give IQ tests. One of the questions on the Wechsler IQ test for adults is, “Where does the sun rise?”
As an aspiring psychologist, I had to persuade as many friends, neighbors, acquaintances and relatives as I could to permit me to practice on them by administering the test to them.
So, my then fianceé (now my wife - who by the way never permitted me to test her) had me test one of her friends, who was an engineering student. When I asked the question, he thought about it for a moment and replied, “It depends on your point of view.”
Well, that cost him a coupla’ IQ points. LOL. Anyway, I went home and gave the test to my father, another engineer. His answer, “Well, I guess it depends on your point of view.”
Gee whiz! These guys make it so hard!
After an inordinately large number of tries (I can be a slow learner at times), I stopped testing engineers and engineering students, as nearly all gave some version of that answer.
It’s an easy way to figure out if someone’s an engineer or not, without having to directly ask.
sitetest
Ask an engineer if the glass is half full or half empty, he’ll reply, “The glass is twice as large as it needs to be.”
LOL!
Where’s that Captain Obvious “You are falling to your death” picture when you need it.
IMO, this is one of the better observations on this whole issue.
So the engineers are, technically, correct. But I bet the Wechsler just wanted "east" or "west" . . . or does it?
You may hang out with engineers... but you’re clearly not one. ;-)
When I queried further, I got answers that asked questions about whether we were positing that we were observing from earth, or the moon, or another planet, or elsewhere in outer space, usually followed by unprompted monologues of just how the sun would be perceived from various planets, satellites, star systems, and other galactic phenomena. And then, there were questions about when (not just time of year, but in what century, millennium, or eon).
“But I bet the Wechsler just wanted ‘east’ or ‘west’ . . . or does it?”
Well, if you want the points for the question, the answer is “east.”
sitetest
I was wondering how long it’d take you to show up with that picture. ;-)
My favorite is from graduate school. I asked an engineer—I believe he was preoccupied on a problem—for directions or something and he said, matter-of-factly, “An asymptote is a line” and continued walking.
I suppose that is useful to someone.
Sigh. You’re welcome. It seems obvious, doesn’t it?
I think it is under a case of ice-cold beer, FRiend. MMmmmm.
You have a nice collection of colorful graphics. That is why I like to Ping you. For local color...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1870079/posts?page=959#959
959 posts and still going. Jeepers!
ENGINEER IDENTIFICATION TEST;
You walk into a room and notice that a picture is hanging crooked.
You...
A. Straighten it.
B. Ignore it.
C. Buy a CAD system and spend the next six months designing a solar-powered, self-adjusting picture frame while often stating aloud your belief that the inventor of the nail was a total moron.
The correct answer is “C” but partial credit can be given to anybody who writes “It depends” in the margin of the test.
That’s great. I’ve got to file that one for the future.
Thnx!
F
No point in kissing up to me. I’m not a super-secret incognito Religion Moderator.
;OP
(I'm a lawyer, not an engineer! I'm also a pilot, which is probably why the azimuth comes into it.)
< standing by for lawyer jokes >
Real Engnieers.
1. Real Engineers consider themselves well dressed if their socks match.
2. Real Engineers buy their spouses a set of matched screwdrivers for their birthday.
3. Real Engineers wear mustaches or beards for “efficiency”. Not because they’re lazy.
4. Real Engineers have a non-technical vocabulary of 800 words.
5. Real Engineers think a “biting wit” is their fox terrier.
6. Real Engineers know how to take the cover off of their computer, and are not afraid to do it.
7. Real Engineers know the second law of thermodynamics - but not their own shirt size.
8. Real Engineers repair their own cameras, telephones, televisions, watches, and automatic transmissions.
9. Real Engineers say “It’s 70 degrees Fahrenheit, 25 degrees Celsius, and 298 degrees Kelvin” and all you say is “Isn’t it a nice day”
10. Real Engineers give you the feeling you’re having a conversation with a dial tone or busy signal.
11. Real Engineers wear badges so they don’t forget who they are. Sometimes a note is attached saying “Don’t offer me a ride today. I drove my own car”.
12. Real Engineers’ politics run towards acquiring a parking space with their name on it and an office with a window.
13. Real Engineers know the “ABC’s of Infrared” from A to B.
14. Real Engineers rotate their tires for laughs.
15. Real Engineers will make four sets of drawings (with seven revisions) before making a bird bath.
16. Real Engineers’ briefcases contain a Phillips screwdriver, a copy of “Quantum Physics”, and a half of a peanut butter sandwich.
17. Real Engineers know that Halloween is really the same as Christmas, because OCT 31 = DEC 25. (If you _don’t_ get it, then you’re not a Real Engineer.)
18. Real Engineers don’t find the above at all funny.
It’s a shame they don’t make a P-like character with the “tongue” centered. Would add much to your
;-0P
OR, is your name Orville Petronski, O.P.?
Anything (!) to avoid being Orville Petronski?
;Oþ
This has happened to me.
But I asked for them! A very nice set of gunsmithing screwdrivers so I wouldn't mess up the setscrews on my telescopic sight.
EGO
Ego-wise, two things are important to engineers:
1. How smart they are.
2. How many cool devices they own.
The fastest way to get an engineer to solve a problem is to declare that the problem is unsolvable. No engineer can walk away from an unsolvable problem until it’s solved. No illness or distraction is sufficient to get the engineer off the case. These types of challenges quickly become personal - a battle between the engineer and the laws of nature.
Engineers will go without food and hygiene for days to solve a problem. (Other times just because they forgot.) And when they succeed in solving the problem they will experience an ego rush that is better than sex- and I’m including the kind of sex where other people are involved.
Nothing is more threatening to the engineer than the suggestion that somebody has more technical skill. Normal people sometimes use that knowledge as a lever to extract more work from the engineer. When an engineer says that something can’t be done (a code phrase that means it’s not fun to do), some clever normal people have learned to glance at the engineer with a look of compassion and pity and say something along these lines: “I’ll ask Bob to figure it out. He knows how to solve difficult technical problems.”
At that point it is a good idea for the normal person to not stand between the engineer and the problem. The engineer will set upon the problem like a starved Chihuahua on a pork chop.
I’m sure your conversations are priceless. A gun-toting lawyer pilot and an engineer from Georgia Tech.
I can imagine you break into speaking Olden Dutch or Slavonic Flemish just to get his attention?
;-o)
A third thing even more important to engineers:
Technical reputation among other engineer-type of persons.
sitetest
In some foreign country a priest, a lawyer and an engineer are about to be guillotined.
The priest puts his head on the block, they pull the rope and nothing happens - he declares that he’s been saved by divine intervention - so he’s let go.
The lawyer is put on the block, and again the rope doesn’t release the blade, he claims he can’t be executed twice for the same crime and he is set free too.
They grab the engineer and shove his head into the guillotine, he looks up at the release mechanism and says, “Wait a minute, I see your problem...”
And a fourth thing (once upon a time):
Slide rules.
Every engineer I knew on campus wore black pants, a white shirt with a pocket protector, had at least 8 assorted pencils and pens of varying colors stuck in it (and a small thermometer) and a slide rule hung from their belt in a special case.
And I’m not talking about the $4.99 wonders available at the local bookstore...
So he's not quite as weird as some of the engineers, although chemists can be quite strange (hey, I was dating him when he was at Tech, and I went to some of those Chem Department picnics. Watch out for the punch!) He's a card-carrying pyrotechnist, although he hasn't worked firing displays since the kids were born. Also a semi-pro photographer, a radio amateur (Extra), and a guitarist and lutenist. And a pretty good shot himself. He's got me beat all to pieces in rifle or pistol marksmanship (especially pistol) but I still am better with a shotgun.
Really, there's never a dull moment around our house!
He taught me to multiply with one, but that's about all my poor liberal-arts brain can handle.
Dear Frank Sheed,
Although I’m just old enough to have owned and used slide rules in elementary school, by the time I was old enough to “accessorize” my own wardrobe, I had a programmable calculator ensconced in its case hanging off my belt.
When I was perhaps 10 or 12, right before the time that electronic hand-held calculators started to get very small and very cheap, my father picked up a set of electro-mechanical calculators. These were absolutely fascinating machines. They were “desktop” in nature, weighed about 80 pounds each, made of solid steel. Could add, subtract, multiply, divide, do percentages, all up to something like 20 digits. Very cool! The manufacturer was Friden.
Here’s a link that has photos of machines similar to my father’s machines:
http://www.oldcalculatormuseum.com/fridenstw.html
sitetest
“Catholics and Protestants Still Have Doctrinal Differences”
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have a hands-down winner for the ultimate Standing Headline!
And nothing has an on-off switch.
We had mechanical adding machines when I took accounting in high school. I guess they had gears. (Can you see I’m not an engineer?)
Nailed it in one :)
I used one of those. I think it was from WW-II. Same course too.
;-o)
Huh?
The Three Rules of Electrical Engineering:
1) It only works if you plug it in.
2) If works a whole lot better if you turn it on.
3) If you let the smoke out of the system, it stops working.
Yes, you have to turn it on, but not with anything so obvious as an on/off switch. I turn on my car radio by pressing a “Source” button. I turn on my cell phone by pressing “End.”
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.