Vatican Document Corrects Neocath Excesses

On July 10, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith offered “responses to questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the Church.” The document affirms with Vatican II and with John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 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.” The document has stirred up a vast and fruitless debate, and, as in the case of the Motu Proprio on the Tridentine Rite, one wonders why it was issued at all. It looks as if Rome has succeeded in shooting itself in the foot twice in four days.

.

To the question, Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”? the answer is given that this “indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church” but also indicates that there are many “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” found outside her structure, which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity.” Thus the other Christian bodies have a significant and important place in the mystery of salvation and are used by the Spirit as instruments of salvation, whose value comes from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

.

The Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century “do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church” and cannot be called churches in the proper sense. This has occasioned the same sort of comment as Dominus Iesus did a few years ago, and I personally think that the vision of the Council permits a far warmer account of these communities, which would accept their own self-understanding as churches in the proper sense, and as churches in the biblical sense. In the case of the Anglican Communion, the closeness to Roman Catholicism, in view of the shared sacraments, apostolic succession, and creedal theology, is particularly overwhelming, as in the case of the Orthodox.

.

There is nothing at all new in this document. Perhaps one reason it is issued now is to correct the excesses of Neocath theology? Many Catholics have been indoctrinated in -- or have refused to unlearn -- the thesis of a massive and exclusive identity of the Church of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church. The idea that the Church of Christ is present and operative outside the bounds of the Roman Church has never got through to them.  They are a target audience of this document, but unfortunately the media’s interpretation will once again prevent the message from reaching the audience.

.

The neocath excesses are well illustrated by "Janice", at Pertinacious Papist, who has been celebrating the new document in advance in the following terms (she makes some debatable points, but the overall tenor of her remarks is at odds with the Vatican insistence that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the other Christian bodies):

.

We’re getting rid of subsistit and going back to esse. It also gets rid of Walter Kasper’s dumbass notions of ecclesiology and ecumenism. [NOTE: Janice here attacks not just the spirit but the letter of Vatican II.] Perhaps I am a bit uncharitable toward His Eminence Cardinal Kasper. Still, I like the word “dumbass,” and I use it sparingly. I could have called him... So I guess I was using restraint. Cardinal Kasper is tendentious and abuses the historical critical method. His view of ecumenism is to sell out Church teaching for something called “world Christianity.”
.

One thing the Motu proprio and the newest document from the CDF are going to do is to drive a stake through the heart of fuzzy ecumenism, where evangelical/pentecostal converts to Catholicism can tell me to “check my copy of Dominus Iesus” to see that in their former confessions they also have the truth. What I hope will be the outcome is a retraction of the arrogance of evangelical and pentecostal converts to Catholicism, who assume that they are bringing something into Catholicism, rather than receiving the fullness of the mystery of Christ. They usually assume that evangelicalism or pentecostalism is a valid fragment (“a partial truth”) of Christianity that should be subsumed into Catholicism. The CDF document should spell out to these converts once and for all that they are bringing nothing but themselves into the Church.
.

Louis Bouyer wrote: “It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church.” Protestants cite this sentiment many times. And yet, Protestant theology in the main is a “pro me” theology, focusing on individual salvation, whereas Catholic theology is always theology in communion with others. That is its essence. This is a rejection of Catholic soteriology (and hence Catholic Christology) that has its roots in the NT (and the OT). And the notion that non-Catholic Christians hold in their organization some of the “treasures” that we Catholics overlook is absurd on its face. The Catholic Church is complete in itself. Not all of its treasures are at the fore at all times, but they are always there. The protestants do not offer anything to the Church that we do not already have.

With the new CDF document, we might finally get rid of the fatuous notions of “ecumenical evangelization” or “world Christianity” and begin to reclaim the uniqueness of Christ, i.e., the uniqueness of Catholicism. Dominus Iesus was a good start, but given the numerous misuses of it by evangelical converts, I can see where another effort was necessary. And this nonsense about “fidelity to Protestant principles” bringing people back to Catholicism is disingenuous at best, and at worst, it’s dishonest. The very portrait of Jesus that emerges out of Protestant Christianity is quite at variance with that held by Catholicism [Is Christ divided? This is an outrageous denial of the unity of Christ’s Church, present and active in the Protestant bodies as well], in which one comes to know Jesus within the Church itself. It is in the Church and through the Church that we learn about Jesus and how to pray to Him. Protestant Christianity has nothing similar to that. The Jesus they know is akin to the Jesus of the “historical Jesus” school of theology. There is no eternally present Jesus in the Eucharist for them, nor a tradition that speaks to this eternal presence. It is all based on individual readings of Scripture and idiosyncratic interpretations of what it means. There is no understanding of “Church.” Protestants are adrift, each to himself. [Here Janice either shows utter ignorance of ninety years of ecumenism or pits herself in revolt against it, as if Vatican II had never happened.]

.

“Anyone entering the Church has to be aware that he is entering a separate, active cultural entity with her own many-layered intercultural character that has grown up in the course of history. Without a certain exodus, a breaking off with one’s life in all its aspects, one cannot become a Christian. Faith is no private path to God; it leads into the people of God and into its history. God has linked himself to a history, which is now also his history and which we cannot simply erase” (Truth and Tolerance). This is Joseph Ratzinger’s view of conversion to Catholicism. Protestants should understand that the Catholic Church is an active entity all by Herself; thus when they enter the Church, they need to make as clear a break as they are able from their past. Louis Bouyer is wrong, despite the reverence many give him. [All by herself? Does this not imply sectarian isolationism, the very opposite of the growing together into unity of all Christ’s communities as envisaged by John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint?]

.

Increasingly, I am coming to doubt the wisdom of including everyone who calls themselves “Christian” under that rubric. Recently, I’ve been re-reading Michael Williams book, Rethinking Gnosticism, and it’s pretty clear that there is a continuum to documents that were at first all termed “gnostic.” Some are pretty obviously syncretistic, with the name of Jesus or Christ inserted at the head and foot of the document. Others incorporate bits of the Scriptures, with no evidence that they have been integrated. Still others appear to have some knowledge of Christian theology, although the document is still a tertium quid. My point is: these documents have been conspicuously labelled “Christian” by the so-called scholars in the field, who claim that they represented an alternative to the historical victors after the Constantinian revolution. I should also say that there are baptismal documents that formed part of the Nag Hammadi corpus so many of these so-called Christians may have been baptized (there are fragments of baptismal texts).

.

Everyone now routinely considers anyone who uses the name of Jesus Christ a fellow Christian. It’s one thing to consider the Orthodox as sister Churches, since they have apostolic foundations, a real episcopate, baptism and eucharist. However, when we get to the Reformation bodies, where the Eucharist is reinterpreted as a symbol, so no Real Presence of Christ, they cannot trace their episcopal lineage back to the apostles, they have no conception of “Church” that conforms to the Church of Christ, etc. [This sentence remains unfinished, but it is clear that the logical conclusion would be that Protestants are not Christians. Such is the appalling sectarianism to which neocaths want to see the Vatican commit itself. What they forget is that the Vatican is bound by the vision of Vatican II. The Vatican is not to be confused with the Lefebvrite movement which rejects Vatican II. But Janice becomes quite explicit in what follows:]

.

I am not saying that members of these ecclesial bodies are not very good, devout people. I am not saying that God does not love them. I believe that He does, very much. But I do question whether or not they fully possess the categories required to be called “Christian” (cf. Acts 11.25-26). These categories are completely lacking when one considers evangelical, Pentecostal, or independent Christians, who lack any of the requisite criteria (Church, Eucharist, hierarchy, etc.), but only retain the “pro me” Lutheran-derived soteriology.

.

They’re always waving Dominus Iesus in my face [correctly!], telling me that they possess “truth.” Well, so did many in pagan Rome and so did the Visigoths and they did not have the benefit of the Scriptures or of the Tradition (which these groups vociferously reject). So, by what reason do they claim the name “Christian”? They self-select passages to prove points they themselves choose. Catholics learn Scripture from within the Church, as they learn to know and to pray to Jesus Christ. [If they follow the Tridentine Rite they will reduce their access to Scripture to 1% of the Old Testament and 17% of the New; as opposed to 14% and 71% respectively in the current liturgy.] Scripture is integrated into the Liturgy because in this way the Church teaches us not only how Scripture is to be read (i.e., the OT in terms of Christ, Christ’s own self-revelation in the NT and his quotations of OT passages), but in what manner it makes sense in a way that respects the unity of Scripture (OT + NT), the canon, the concept of the Church as the entity that created the canon, and the theological and liturgical tradition. When Scripture is received in a Catholic Mass, it is part of a received tradition that the priest is obliged to preach, that is part of centuries of preaching and teaching, that has its origins in Jesus Himself. And it is in the context of the worship of God and the focus is on God, not on some kind of self-help program or some other kind of “pro me” oriented preaching. [Needless to say, this polemic against pro me is based on total ignorance of Luther’s theology and of the massive Catholic scholarship devoted to it over the last seventy years. Her only cited source is the highly tendentious work of Paul Hacker, Das Ich im Glaube bei Martin Luther, a caricature of Lutheranism as subjectivism, which despite a preface by Joseph Ratzinger enjoys no respectability whatever in the world of Luther scholarship. Paul Hacker went on to become a distinguished Indologist.]

.

Update: Janice attacks Cardinal Kasper’s comment on the document: Cardinal Walter Kasper again redefined the meaning of church. Cardinal Kasper said a careful reading would show that the Vatican does not deny that Protestant churches are churches, but only stated that the Vatican definition of what constitutes a church is one that is traceable through its bishops to Christ's original apostles. ‘Without doubt at the basis of dialogue is not what divides us but what unites us, and that is larger than what divides us,’ Kasper said.

.

Reading this, I was delighted that my view above, that Vatican II and Ut Unum Sint are compatible with recognition that the Protestant communities are churches in the proper sense and in the biblical sense, was shared by the eminent cardinal, and might even be entailed by the recent document, despite its negative-sounding utterances. Could the Cardinal be exercising a certain amount of hermeneutical violence on the document, just as the French bishops famously did with the Syllabus of Errors, for which service they were thanked by Pius IX? Catholic hermeneutics, after all, is far richer, subtler and more pluralistic than neocaths can imagine. But on consulting Kasper's actual words, I found that Janice has misrepresented them:

.

A thorough reading of the text makes clear that the document does not say that the Protestant churches are not churches, but that they are not churches in the proper sense, i.e. they are not churches in the sense in which the Catholic Church understands itself as church. For anyone even partly informed, this is purely self-evident. The Protestant churches do not want to be a church at all in the sense of the Catholic Church; they speak strongly of having another understanding of church and ministry in the church which, on the other hand, Catholics frankly do not consider to be the original one. Has not the recent Protestant document in Germany about ministry and ordination, done something similar, claiming that the Catholic understandings of the Church and the ministry of the Church are not the original one?
.
When, following the declaration “Dominus Iesus”, I said that the Protestant churches are churches of another type, this was not – as some reactions on the Protestant side seemed to assume – in contrast to the formulation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but it was the attempt to interpret it objectively. And I want to do exactly the same thing now, since Catholics speak, now as always, of Protestant regional Churches (Landeskirchen), of the Protestant Church of Germany (Evangelische Kirche Deutschlands, EKD), of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany (Vereinigte Evangelisch Lutherische Kirche Deutschlands, VELKD), of the Church of England etc. The declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does nothing else than to show that we do not use the one and same word Church completely in the same sense. Such a statement helps to clarify and to promote the dialogue.
.
The foundation of the dialogue is that there is more that unites us than divides us. Therefore we should not miss reading the positive statements of the declaration about the Protestant churches, namely, that Jesus Christ is effectively present within them for the salvation of their members. In the past this would by no means be an obvious statement; but now it includes – even though significant differences remain – the recognition of baptism, following Vatican II, and a series of positive statements about the Protestant eucharist (Decree on Ecumenism 22). Therefore, the declaration is not taking back anything of the ecumenical progress already reached, but drawing attention to the ecumenical task that still lies ahead. We should be offended by these differences, and not by those who point them out. The declaration is rather an urgent invitation to an objective dialogue that will help us move ahead.
.

Kasper here is the voice of Catholic orthodoxy and of Vatican II. This voice is displeasing to the neocath ear. The late Giuseppe Alberigo, the major historian so far of Vatican II, is also treated with contempt by Janice:

.

I think this era will be notable for continuing clarification about Catholic identity... The post-Vatican II era, where "anything goes" was subject to many Protestantizing theologies and practices. With the recent death of Giuseppe Alberigo of the Bologna School (History of Vatican II), who insisted that Vatican II was the beginning of everything, not the continuation of things, it seems like a good time to take stock of where the Church is and re-evaluate. And retrieval and strengthening of the Church's legitimate tradition is one of the things that is certainly under discussion in many places.
.

Paul Borealis, another voluminous contributor to the Pertinacious Papist site, writes:

.

The so-called 'Ecumenical Movement since Vatican II' has done damage to the Catholic Church and the Holy Mass - obscured the Eucharistic Sacrifice - confused Catholic liturgical worship of God. If the 'Ecumenical Movement' being promoted in the Church in theory, practice and implementation is not an outright heresy (or a 'semi' heresy), it is still rather hard for some Catholics to stomach the real negative influences it has had on the so-called Vatican II Reform, and on our spiritual identity and lives... The so-called 'modern Ecumenical movement' was probably one of those 'Protestant' things brought into the Church that are not working out that well.
.

Obsessing about Catholic identity is a common neocath trait, and it is profoundly uncatholic.

.

***

Neocath bloggers have unanimously greeted the document as a blow at fuzzy ecumenism and ecclesiological relativism. All of them refuse to quote the important statement in the document, from John Paul II’s well-received Encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, according to which the Church of Christ is present and operative in the other Christian churches and ecclesial communities. Here for instance is an extract from Philip Blosser’s summary:

.

2. 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’ 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. ... ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church. ... the word ‘subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone ...”

3. Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

Response: This “does not change the doctrine on the Church,” but only elucidates “the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth.’”

All reference to the elements of ecclesiality in the other churchs is systematically elided. Then Blosser goes on to celebrate the document in these terms:

.

Benedict is on a roll! Anyone with any discernment must have known this was coming. Benedict is the consummate gentleman. He doesn’t show up at a party, take over, and dominate, like a boor. Instead, he spends a long time just listening. In the meantime, he begins meeting with key individuals behind the scenes, out of the limelight. He knows his own mind, just as he knows the mind of the Church. He’s not owned by any interest group. In due time, the course charted by the Pontiff emerges with unmistakable clarity. Thank you, Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, for your servant, Benedict!

.

Moreover, the positive emphases of the document have not been picked up by the media either, nor in the offended Protestant responses. Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, said that while the Vatican’s statement doesn’t change any existing statement “it does, however, restate known positions in provocative ways.” Hanson wrote. “However troubling such exclusive claims may be, we recall the Second Vatican Council’s ‘Decree on Ecumenism’ which affirmed that the separated churches and ecclesial communities are used by the Spirit of Christ ‘as means of salvation.’” But the Vatican document itself stresses this! Hanson adds that the “anguished response of Christians” throughout the world to the Vatican’s statement shows that what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain. “Now is the time for our thoughtful and measured response. The question all Christian people should reflect on today is how best to exercise forbearance and love for one another.” “The ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’ in 1999 ... resolved a bitter 500-year dispute.  We will continue to celebrate and build upon the deepening relationships fostered by that Joint Declaration even as we long for greater visible unity itself.” Hanson agrees with Cardinal Walter Kasper that “for the ecumenical movement to bear the weight of change for the future, it must be rooted in ecumenism of life.”
.

The media, the neocaths, and the offended fellow-Christians have all focused only on the negative emphases of the document, ignoring its restatement of the positive views of Vatican II and John Paul II. Some blame for this reception, which is a public relations disaster and an ecumenical setback, must lie at the feet of the framers of the document. Adopting the old dubia et responsa format of the Holy Office, the document subscribes to a false theory of communication, the idea that it suffices to enunciate objective truths in a totally decontextualized manner. A lack of ecumenical courtesy, sensitivity and professionalism has been shown here.

.

While the Vatican has once again managed to get the whole world involved in an asinine debate, the man who is laughing all the way to the bank is Bishop Bernard Fellay, current leader of the Lefebvrite schism. Emboldened by the appeasement offered by Benedict in the Motu Proprio, he stresses anew his doctrinal difference with Vatican II, stating that the new document only proves the necessity of the doctrinal discussions between the SSPX and the Holy See prior to a final practical canonical agreement: “this document… is telling us that a circle is a quadrangle.”

Comments

[Joseph O'Leary]

The Vatican offers the following comment on the document:


CONGREGAZIONE PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE

ARTICOLO DI COMMENTO
ai
Responsa ad quaestiones de aliquibus sententiis
ad doctrinam de Ecclesia pertinentibus

Le diverse questioni alle quali la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede intende rispondere vertono sulla visione generale della Chiesa quale emerge dai documenti di carattere dogmatico ed ecumenico del Concilio Vaticano II, il concilio “della Chiesa sulla Chiesa”, che secondo le parole di Paolo VI ha segnato una «nuova epoca per la Chiesa» in quanto ha avuto il merito di aver «meglio tratteggiato e svelato il volto genuino della Sposa di Cristo»[1]. Non mancano inoltre richiami ai principali documenti dei Pontefici Paolo VI e Giovanni Paolo II e agli interventi della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, tutti ispirati ad una sempre più approfondita visione della Chiesa stessa, spesso finalizzati ad apportare chiarimenti alla notevole produzione teologica postconciliare, non sempre immune da deviazioni e inesattezze.

La stessa finalità è rispecchiata nel presente documento con il quale la Congregazione intende richiamare il significato autentico di alcuni interventi del Magistero in materia di ecclesiologia perché la sana ricerca teologica non venga intaccata da errori o da ambiguità. A questo riguardo va tenuto presente il genere letterario dei “Responsa ad quaestiones”, che di natura sua non comportano argomentazioni addotte a comprovare la dottrina esposta, ma si limitano a richiami del precedente Magistero e pertanto intendono dire una parola certa e sicura in materia.

Il primo quesito chiede se il Vaticano II abbia mutato la precedente dottrina sulla Chiesa.

L’interrogativo riguarda il significato di quel “nuovo volto” della Chiesa che, secondo le citate parole di Paolo VI, il Vaticano II ha offerto.

La risposta, fondata sull’insegnamento di Giovanni XXIII e di Paolo VI, è molto esplicita: il Vaticano II non ha inteso mutare, e di fatto non ha mutato, la precedente dottrina sulla Chiesa, ma piuttosto l’ha approfondita ed esposta in maniera più organica. In tal senso vengono riprese le parole di Paolo VI nel suo discorso di promulgazione della Costituzione dogmatica conciliare Lumen gentium, nelle quali si afferma che la dottrina tradizionale non è stata affatto mutata, ma «ciò che era semplicemente vissuto, ora è espresso; ciò che era incerto, è chiarito; ciò che era meditato, discusso, e in parte controverso, ora giunge a serena formulazione».[2]

Allo stesso modo c’è continuità tra la dottrina esposta dal Concilio e quella richiamata nei successivi interventi magisteriali che hanno ripreso e approfondito la stessa dottrina, costituendone nel contempo uno sviluppo. In questo senso, ad esempio la Dichiarazione della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede Dominus Iesus ha solo ripreso i testi conciliari e i documenti post-conciliari, senza aggiungere o togliere nulla.

Nonostante queste chiare attestazioni, nel periodo postconciliare la dottrina del Vaticano II è stata oggetto, e continua ad esserlo, di interpretazioni fuorvianti e in discontinuità con la dottrina cattolica tradizionale sulla natura della Chiesa: se, da una parte, si vedeva in essa una “svolta copernicana”, dall’altra, ci si è concentrati su taluni aspetti considerati quasi in contrapposizione con altri. In realtà l’intenzione profonda del Concilio Vaticano II era chiaramente di inserire e subordinare il discorso della Chiesa al discorso di Dio, proponendo una ecclesiologia nel senso propriamente teo-logico, ma la recezione del Concilio ha spesso trascurato questa caratteristica qualificante in favore di singole affermazioni ecclesiologiche, si è concentrata su singole parole di facile richiamo, favorendo letture unilaterali e parziali della stessa dottrina conciliare.

Per quanto concerne l'ecclesiologia di Lumen gentium, sono restate nella coscienza ecclesiale alcune parole chiave: l'idea di popolo di Dio, la collegialità dei Vescovi come rivalutazione del ministero dei vescovi insieme con il primato del Papa, la rivalutazione delle Chiese particolari all’interno della Chiesa universale, l'apertura ecumenica del concetto di Chiesa e l'apertura alle altre religioni; infine, la questione dello statuto specifico della Chiesa cattolica, che si esprime nella formula secondo cui la Chiesa una, santa, cattolica ed apostolica, di cui parla il Credo, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica.

Alcune di queste affermazioni, specialmente quella sullo statuto specifico della Chiesa cattolica con i suoi riflessi in campo ecumenico, costituiscono le principali tematiche affrontate dal documento nei successivi quesiti.

Il secondo quesito chiede come si debba intendere che la Chiesa di Cristo sussiste nella Chiesa cattolica.

Quando G. Philips scrisse che l’espressione “subsistit in” avrebbe fatto «scorrere fiumi d’inchiostro»[3], probabilmente non aveva previsto che la discussione sarebbe continuata così a lungo e con tale intensità da spingere la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede a pubblicare il presente documento.

Tanta insistenza, d’altronde fondata sui testi conciliari e del Magistero successivo citati, riflette la preoccupazione di salvaguardare l’unità e l’unicità della Chiesa, che verrebbero meno se si ammettesse che vi possano essere più sussistenze della Chiesa fondata da Cristo. Infatti, come si dice nella Dichiarazione Mysterium Ecclesiae, se così fosse si giungerebbe ad immaginare «la Chiesa di Cristo come la somma - differenziata e in qualche modo unitaria insieme - delle Chiese e Comunità ecclesiali» o a «pensare che la Chiesa di Cristo oggi non esista più in alcun luogo e che, perciò, debba essere soltanto oggetto di ricerca da parte di tutte le Chiese e comunità»[4]. L'unica Chiesa di Cristo non esisterebbe più come ‘una’ nella storia o esisterebbe solo in modo ideale ossia in fieri in una futura convergenza o riunificazione delle diverse Chiese sorelle, auspicata e promossa dal dialogo.

Ancora più esplicita è la Notificazione della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede nei confronti di uno scritto di Leonardo Boff, secondo il quale l'unica Chiesa di Cristo «può pure sussistere in altre Chiese cristiane»; al contrario, - precisa la Notificazione - «il Concilio aveva invece scelto la parola “subsistit” proprio per chiarire che esiste una sola “sussistenza” della vera Chiesa, mentre fuori della sua compagine visibile esistono solo “elementa Ecclesiae”, che – essendo elementi della stessa Chiesa – tendono e conducono verso la Chiesa cattolica»[5].

Il terzo quesito chiede perché sia stata usata l’espressione “subsistit in” e non il verbo “est”.

É stato precisamente questo cambiamento di terminologia nel descrivere il rapporto tra la Chiesa di Cristo e la Chiesa cattolica che ha dato adito alle più svariate illazioni, soprattutto in campo ecumenico. In realtà i Padri conciliari hanno semplicemente inteso riconoscere la presenza, nelle Comunità cristiane non cattoliche in quanto tali, di elementi ecclesiali propri della Chiesa di Cristo. Ne consegue che l’identificazione della Chiesa di Cristo con la Chiesa cattolica non è da intendersi come se al di fuori della Chiesa cattolica ci fosse un “vuoto ecclesiale”. Allo stesso tempo essa significa che, se si considera il contesto in cui è situata l'espressione subsistit in, cioè il riferimento all'unica Chiesa di Cristo «in questo mondo costituita e organizzata come una società... governata dal successore di Pietro e dai Vescovi in comunione con lui», il passaggio da est a subsistit in non riveste un particolare significato teologico di discontinuità con la dottrina cattolica precedente.

Infatti, poiché la Chiesa così voluta da Cristo di fatto continua ad esistere (subsistit in) nella Chiesa cattolica, la continuità di sussistenza comporta una sostanziale identità di essenza tra Chiesa di Cristo e Chiesa cattolica. Il Concilio ha voluto insegnare che la Chiesa di Gesù Cristo come soggetto concreto in questo mondo può essere incontrata nella Chiesa cattolica. Ciò può avvenire una sola volta e la concezione secondo cui il “subsistit” sarebbe da moltiplicare non coglie proprio ciò che si intendeva dire. Con la parola “subsistit” il Concilio voleva esprimere la singolarità e la non moltiplicabilità della Chiesa di Cristo: esiste la Chiesa come unico soggetto nella realtà storica.

Pertanto la sostituzione di “est” con “subsistit in”, contrariamente a tante interpretazioni infondate, non significa che la Chiesa cattolica desista dalla convinzione di essere l'unica vera Chiesa di Cristo, ma semplicemente significa una sua maggiore apertura alla particolare richiesta dell'ecumenismo di riconoscere carattere e dimensione realmente ecclesiali alle Comunità cristiane non in piena comunione con la Chiesa cattolica, a motivo dei “plura elementa sanctificationis et veritatis” presenti in esse. Di conseguenza, benché la Chiesa sia soltanto una e “sussista” in un unico soggetto storico, anche al di fuori di questo soggetto visibile esistono vere realtà ecclesiali.

Il quarto quesito chiede perché il Concilio Vaticano II abbia attribuito il nome di “Chiese” alle Chiese orientali non in piena comunione con la Chiesa cattolica.

Nonostante l’esplicita affermazione che la Chiesa di Cristo “sussiste” nella Chiesa Cattolica, il riconoscimento che, anche al di fuori del suo organismo visibile, si trovano “parecchi elementi di santificazione e di verità”[6], comporta un carattere ecclesiale, anche se diversificato, delle Chiese o Comunità ecclesiali non cattoliche. Anch’esse infatti «non sono affatto spoglie di significato e di peso» nel senso che «lo Spirito di Cristo non ricusa di servirsi di esse come strumenti di salvezza»[7].

Il testo prende in considerazione anzitutto la realtà delle Chiese orientali non in piena comunione con la Chiesa cattolica e, richiamandosi a vari testi conciliari, riconosce loro il titolo di “Chiese particolari o locali” e le chiama Chiese sorelle delle Chiese particolari cattoliche, perché restano unite alla Chiesa cattolica per mezzo della successione apostolica e della valida eucaristia, «per cui in esse la Chiesa di Dio è edificata e cresce»[8]. Anzi la Dichiarazione Dominus Iesus le chiama espressamente «vere Chiese particolari»[9].

Pur con questo esplicito riconoscimento del loro “essere Chiesa particolare” e del valore salvifico incluso, il documento non poteva non sottolineare la carenza (defectus), di cui risentono, proprio nel loro essere Chiesa particolare. Infatti, per la loro visione eucaristica della Chiesa, che pone l'ac­cento sulla realtà della Chiesa particolare riunita nel nome di Cristo nella celebrazione dell'Eucaristia e sotto la guida del vescovo, esse considerano le Chiese particolari complete nella loro particolarità[10]. Ne consegue che, stante la fondamentale uguaglianza fra tutte le Chiese particolari e fra tutti i vescovi che le presiedono, esse hanno ciascuna una propria autonomia interna, con evidenti riflessi sulla dottrina del primato, che secondo la fede cattolica è un “principio costitutivo interno” per l’esistenza stessa di una Chiesa particolare[11]. Naturalmente sarà sempre necessario sottolineare che il primato del Successore di Pietro, Vescovo di Roma, non deve essere inteso in modo estraneo o concorrente nei confronti dei Vescovi delle Chiese particolari. Esso deve esercitarsi come servizio all’unità della fede e della comunione, entro i limiti che procedono dalla legge divina e dall’inviolabile costituzione divina della Chiesa contenuta nella Rivelazione[12].

Il quinto quesito chiede perché non venga riconosciuto il titolo di “Chiese” alle Comunità ecclesiali nate dalla Riforma.

Al riguardo si deve dire che «la ferita è ancora molto più profonda nelle comunità ecclesiali che non hanno conservato la successione apostolica e l’eucaristia valida»[13]; pertanto esse «non sono Chiese in senso proprio»[14], ma “Comunità ecclesiali”, come attesta l’insegnamento conciliare e post-conciliare[15].

Nonostante queste chiare affermazioni abbiano creato disagio nelle Comunità interessate e anche in campo cattolico, non si vede, d’altra parte, come a tali Comunità possa essere attribuito il titolo di “Chiesa”, dal momento che non accettano il concetto teologico di Chiesa in senso cattolico e mancano di elementi considerati essenziali dalla Chiesa cattolica.

Occorre, comunque, ricordare che dette Comunità, come tali, per i diversi elementi di santificazione e di verità in esse realmente presenti, hanno indubbiamente un carattere ecclesiale e un conseguente valore salvifico.

Riprendendo sostanzialmente l’insegnamento conciliare e il Magistero post-conciliare, il nuovo documento, promulgato dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, costituisce un chiaro richiamo alla dottrina cattolica sulla Chiesa. Oltre a fugare visioni inaccettabili, tuttora diffuse nello stesso ambito cattolico, esso offre preziose indicazioni anche per il proseguimento del dialogo ecumenico, che resta sempre una delle priorità della Chiesa cattolica, come ha confermato anche Benedetto XVI già nel suo primo messaggio alla Chiesa (20 aprile 2005) e in tante altre occasioni, specie nel suo viaggio apostolico in Turchia (28 novembre – 1 dicembre 2006). Ma perché il dialogo possa veramente essere costruttivo, oltre all’apertura agli interlocutori, è necessaria la fedeltà alla identità della fede cattolica. Solo in tal modo si potrà giungere all’unità di tutti i cristiani in “un solo gregge e un solo pastore” (Gv 10, 16) e sanare così quella ferita che tuttora impedisce alla Chiesa cattolica la realizzazione piena della sua universalità nella storia.

L’ecumenismo cattolico può presentarsi a prima vista paradossale. Con l’espressione “subsistit in”, il Concilio Vaticano II volle armonizzare due affermazioni dottrinali: da un lato, che la Chiesa di Cristo, malgrado le divisioni dei cristiani, continua ad esistere pienamente soltanto nella Chiesa cattolica, e, dall’altro lato, l’esistenza di numerosi elementi di santificazione e di verità al di fuori della sua compagine, ovvero nelle Chiese e Comunità ecclesiali che non sono ancora in piena comunione con la Chiesa cattolica. Al riguardo lo stesso Decreto del Concilio Vaticano II sull’ecumenismo Unitatis redintegratio aveva introdotto il termine plenitudo (unitatis/catholicitatis) proprio per aiutare a comprendere meglio questa situazione in certo qual modo paradossale. Benché la Chiesa cattolica abbia la pienezza dei mezzi di salvezza, «tuttavia le divisioni dei cristiani impediscono che la Chiesa stessa attui la pienezza della cattolicità ad essa propria in quei figli, che le sono bensì uniti col battesimo, ma sono separati dalla sua piena comunione»[16]. Si tratta dunque della pienezza della Chiesa cattolica, che è già attuale e che deve crescere nei fratelli non in piena comunione con essa, ma anche nei propri figli che sono peccatori «fino a che il popolo di Dio pervenga nella gioia a tutta la pienezza della gloria eterna nelle celeste Gerusalemme»[17]. Il progresso nella pienezza è radicato nel dinamismo dell’unione con Cristo: «L’unione con Cristo è allo stesso tempo unione con tutti gli altri ai quali Egli si dona. Io non posso avere Cristo solo per me; posso appartenergli soltanto in unione con tutti quelli che sono diventati o diventeranno suoi. La comunione mi tira fuori da me stesso verso di Lui, e così anche verso l’unità con tutti i cristiani»[18].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] PAOLO VI, Discorso a chiusura del III periodo del Concilio (21 novembre 1964): EV 1, 290*.

[2] Ibid., 283*.

[3] G. PHILIPS, La Chiesa e il suo mistero nel Concilio Vaticano II (Milano 1975), I, 111.

[4] CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Dich. Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1: EV 4, 2566.

[5] CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Notificazione in merito allo scritto di p. Leonardo Boff: Chiesa. carisma e potere: EV 9, 1426. Il passo della Notificazione, pur non essendo formalmente citato nel “Responsum”, si trova riportato integralmente nella Dichiarazione Dominus Iesus, nella nota 56 del n. 16.

[6] CONC. ECUMEN. VATICANO II, Cost. dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 8.

[7] CONC. ECUMEN. VATICANO II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3.4.

[8] CONC. ECUMEN. VATICANO II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 15.1.

[9] CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Dich. Dominus Iesus, n. 17: EV 19, 1183.

[10] Cf. COMITATO MISTO CATTOLICO-ORTODOSSO IN FRANCIA, Il primato romano nella comunione delle Chiese, Conclusioni: in “Enchiridion oecumenicum” (1991), vol. 4, n. 956.

[11] Cf. CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Lettera Communionis notio, n. 17: EV 13, 1805.

[12] Cf. CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Considerazioni su Il primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, n. 7 e n.10, in: Il primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, Documenti e Studi, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2002, 16 e 18.

[13] CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Lettera Communionis notio, n. 17: EV 13, 1805.

[14] CONGR. PER LA DOTTRINA DELLA FEDE, Dichiarazione Dominus Iesus, n. 17: EV 19, 1184.

[15] Cf. CONC. ECUMEN. VATICANO II, Decreto Unitatis redintegratio, n. 4; GIOVANNI PAOLO II, Lettera apost. Novo millennio ineunte (2001), n. 48: EV 20, 99.

[16] CONC. ECUMEN. VATICANO II, Decreto Unitatis redintegratio, n. 4.

[17] CONC. ECUMEN. VATICANO II, Decreto, Unitatis redintegratio, n. 3.

[18] BENEDETTO XVI, Lettera Enc. Deus caritas est, n.14: AAS 98 (2006) 228-229.

[Joseph O'Leary]

The "articolo di commento" makes clear that the CDF's purpose is not ecumenical but is concentrated on theological quarrels with people like Leonardo Boff (20 years ago!).

'The Council Fathers simply wanted to recognize the presence, in the non-Catholic Christian communities, of ecclesial elements proper to the Church of Christ. It follows that the identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church is not to be understood as if outside the Catholic Church there were an "ecclesial void".'

'The passage from "est" to "subsistit in" does not bear a particular theological significance of discontinuity with preceding Catholic doctrine.'

[Joseph O'Leary]

Another point stressed is that the Catholic Church is united with other Christians by the shared sacrament of baptism, but yearns to be more fully united with them in perfect communion.

[LJ]

Am I allowed to call myself a neo-Cath even if I don't think the way she thinks a neo-Cath thinks?

[Chris]

The Church of England cannot be properly be called a church. This matter was decided over 100 years ago. Because of a changed understanding of the priesthood and sacraments. Also a break in apostolic succession with Parker there is doubt over Anglican Orders. Even if high Anglicans have dragged in liberal catholic bishops to oradain the doubt has to be presumed because the church has no one understanding of the sacraments.

[crystal]

A really thorough post on the subject - thanks for the info.

[Joseph O'Leary]

"Am I allowed to call myself a neo-Cath even if I don't think the way she thinks a neo-Cath thinks?"

Of course not all neocaths think as Janice Kraus does; her argument is taken to pieces by Carl Olson and Mark Shea, both of whom are neocaths.

I definite neocaths in Wittgensteinian style by the "family traits" that are distributed among them. No one trait is shared by all, and it may be that there could be two neocaths who have no family trait in common though clearly belonging to the family.

Here are some of the most widely distributed traits: antipathy to the spirit of Vatican II and nostalgia for a pre-Vatican II church that never was, unwillingness to admit change and contradiction in official Catholic teaching, unwillingness to see anything wrong with the Crusades and the Inquisition, right wing politics, engagement in the US culture wars on the conservative front, homophobia, membership of the St. Blog's network, a highly polemical style in which rhetoric trumps argument, noisy adulation of Benedict XVI who is taken as a front man for neocath views even when he contradicts them.

[Mike Petrik]

Interesting list of traits, Joseph. But how is it that alleged neocaths Olson and Shea don't seem to exhibit many of them? Admittedly, both probably agree that the term "spirit of Vatican II" was a contrived phrase used by some folks with an agenda to dishonestly advance that agenda. But neither have a problem with Vatican II as such -- just with some of the silly improvisations that were incorrectly attributed to it. Both would agree that Catholic teaching develops (i.e., changes), but would not admit to contradiction in any theologically precise sense. Neither is homophobic, unless one incorrectly uses the term to describe anyone who believes that homosexual relations are wrong. And only Shea has a highly polemical style, but on the other hand so do many bloggers whose Catholicism is ordered by the mysterious spirit of Vatican II. I'm not aware of Olson being a member of St. Blogs, but then again I'm not sure of the list. I suspect old Wittgenstein would say that the term is so imprecise it belies a definition. Or maybe its just a useful pejoritive for folks who need such things.

[Joseph O'Leary]

I think my Wittgensteinian of neocaths holds up well, and many of them have candidly embraced it. Others use the word in different senses, to mean new converts or Catholics who have adopted new attitudes since Vatican II. But there is nothing wrong with homonymy -- most words carry a variety of senses.

Your letter is a bit contradictory -- you say that Shea and Olson have none of the listed traits but then go on to say that they deny contradiction in official church teaching, which is one of the listed traits.

Mark Shea is surely pretty homophobic. He greeted the current nominee for Surgeon General's essay on anal warts with the cry, "he's pointing out the bleedin' obvious" and he encourages hate speech against gays in his comboxes (banning those who object to it). Neocath homophobia goes far beyond agreement with the teaching of the Church that same-sex sexual acts are wrong; it also ridicules gay people for their sexual orientation, and it completely ignores the Church's positive teachings on the dignity and civil rights of gays.

Dr Philip Blosser broadcast similar anal-warts propaganda several times, from the Roman satirist Juvenal, picked up from a piece by Leland D. Peterson in New Oxford Review (a hate-filled rag that has no connection with Oxford University). Title: ‘Juvenal vs. the queer guys: Rump-raiding in Ancient Rome.’Dr Blosser believes in the therapeutic virtues of offensive speech (or what some would categorize as hate speech):

‘In my last post on the matter, "Why NOR ads aim to offend" (Feb. 9, 2006), I argued that much of what people find offensive about NOR and Vree is an in-your-face style and language ("sissies," "sodomites," "whores," "bozos," "fags") that evokes a recoil of abhorrence and disgust because it is deemed as having no place in "civil discourse." This isn't the sum of what offends, but I want to argue that a very large swath of what people find repulsive is precisely this. When Vree offered a detailed etymological and social analysis of the term "fag," for instance, with his accompanying "call-a-spade-a-spade" suggestions, you heard roomfuls of scandalized individuals jumping atop their chairs with lifted skirts, shrieking like Victorian schoolmarms who had sighted a rat’ (http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_pblosser_archive.html).

[Mike Petrik]

Joseph,
My post had nothing to say about NOR, which I agree is a once fine journal that jumped the shark a number of years ago. Indeed, I let my subscription lapse precisely because the periodical started to include homophobic and other mean-spirited content. In any case, you can launch your contrived vocabulary at them if you wish, but I'd be astonished if the folks over there consider themselves neo anything.
Further, my post was not contradictory insomuch as I never wrote that Shea and Olson exhibited none of your listed traits. You might read more carefully.
Finally, I challenge you to prove that Shea is homophobic. Shea is a polemicist who often uses confrontational language to assert his points (a style I don't much appreciate by the way), and among these points is his observation, which is quite correct, that gay rights groups are demanding much more than tolerance, or even acceptance. Shea has consistently supported Catholic teaching and scrupulously avoids ridiculing gays as such. Indeed, he firmly repremands posters who do, making it crystal clear that he has no animus, indeed only sympathy, for those who are afflicted with this disorder, and great respect for those who try in earnest to abide by Church teaching notwithstanding temptation. You are perhaps confusing ridicule of gay rights advocates for their policy preferences with ridicule of gays for sexual orientation. And Shea has never remotely quarreled with Church teaching forbidding "unjust" discrimination against homosexuals, though his prudential understanding of what is unjust might differ at least somewhat from yours. You do him an injustice in suggesting that he participates or encourages hatred of homosexuals. If asserted directly, the suggestion would be simply libelous.

[Mark Shea]

I don't ban people who object to homophobic speech. I ban gaseous priests who suck all the oxygen out of comboxes with voluminous posting when they should be attending to their work as priests. I limited you to three posts on my blog. You tried to ignore me. Now you're gone.

[Joseph O'Leary]

To talk about anal warts as the "bleedin' obvious" truth about gays counts as homophobia in my book.

And, oh, the exquisite irony of this, from the Disputations combox:

"A new commenting rule: You can hijack a thread. You can express open contempt for everyone else involved in a thread. But if you do both in the same thread, you get banned." This may be off topic, but when you say that, you remind me of Adolf Hitler.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 07.17.07 - 3:23 pm | #

Would the real Mark Shea please stand up?

[Joseph O'Leary]

"Those who are afflicted with this disorder" also counts as homophobic in my book. It is sneering pharisaic language, nothing more.

[Joseph O'Leary]

However, if you guys want to discuss homosexuality, yet again, go to one of my postings connected with that topic. This thread is about excesses in the realm of ecclesiology, not in the realm of homophobia.

[Mike Petrik]

Ok Joseph, I understand you now.

[Gégé]

As I see it, Catholics have a great lack of charity when it comes to doctrinal matters. Each seems to thinks Catholic teaching is reduced to his own understanding of the faith, whether "trad" or progressive, leftist or right wing.

It seems obvious to me that whereas there is one Catholic faith, there is not only one single way to be Catholic.

That if one respects this faith and tries to seriously live as a child of God, there are different ways of incarnating that faith.

Concerning Kasper, I'm not able to judge the orthodoxy of his views (and it's not my role as well), but if at Vatican II the Church replaced "is" by "subsist in" I can't see why one would come back to the "is".

Concerning the CDF document, there is nothing new since Dominus Iesus (or I was not able to detect it). I think that it is useful in two ways :
- those who think that to be saved you just have to be a member of the catholic club.
- those who say that whatever the Christian faith you have, it's not a problem, you just need to believe in Christ.

It seems to me that the Church teaches : There are many good things elsewhere; but if you want the best, come here, you won't be disappointed.

Two thousand years after its Master, the Church holds on : "Come and see".

Sincerely.

[Mark Shea]

Padre:

Tom Kreitzberg is an old and respected friend. My note to him was a gag I knew he would enjoy. As to the rest, thanks for confirming my point.

[Jeff Grace]

Mark Shea said:
"I don't ban people who object to homophobic speech. I ban gaseous priests who suck all the oxygen out of comboxes with voluminous posting when they should be attending to their work as priests. I limited you to three posts on my blog. You tried to ignore me. Now you're gone."

Gee, Mark... looks to me like Fr. O'Leary is doing exactly what one would expect a priest to do... being charitable by tolerating abuse from self-important wind-bags like your own self.

[Mike Petrik]

Well, Jeff. My personal experience is that Fr. O'Leary's charitable streak is pretty unreliable.

[Jeff Grace]

Not surprised, Mike... after seeing how some people handle themselves in response to his opinions. He seems to be doing better than expected, I'd say...

[Joseph O'Leary]

Ooops, a hermeneutical oversight, I forgot about irony.

Could we have a discussion of the substantive issues, please?

[Jeff Grace]

Apologies, Joseph... I did veer off a bit!

I'll offer a few thoughts... first, I think you're spot on with the traits you've listed for neocaths. (They are indeed protesting too much) Heck, I've been there myself and I know exactly what you mean... but let me add, I've stepped back a bit... stepped back and looked at some of the convictions I've held as a convert who shared most if not all of the traits you list. But before I comment on my reflections, let me say that the thing that has struck me most... what really has been the impetus for this stepping back... is the pure animosity that exists on both sides of the divide... and there is indeed a divide.

I can see now why people used to settle religious disputes (and in some parts of the world I guess they still do) with a pile of wood and some matches... all in the name of God's Kingdom. I guess nothing is too brutal for the love of God.

Let me try and make this short... my reflections have led me to believe with all my heart that we live in a very big house... God doesn't shut any doors, whether we think it's a door to a cafeteria or a temple... and we'd be better off if we didn't insist on being doormen for God's house. I have convictions... you have convictions... but what will it take, I wonder, for us to back off a bit and see the other person standing across from us?

[Joseph O'Leary]

I see Ignatius Press have joined in the neocath debate, Olson denying he has any neocath traits (though he too welcomed the nominee for Surgeon General's homophobic rant about anal warts). It is sad to think that the publishers of Von Balthasar and Ratzinger have descended to this level: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/07/am-too-am-not-a.html#comments

[Joseph O'Leary]

Here is Olson drooling over Holsinger on anal warts: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/06/cavemen_were_be.html

I just saw the movie "Trembling Before G-D", which exhibits a line of benighted rabbis anathematizing gay youths and in practice driving their own children to suicide. Olson and Holsinger would be very much at home with them. When they think "gays" they immediately think "anal intercourse" and "anal warts". No wonder that Ignatius Press is being shunned by respectable authors, including Ratzinger.

[Joseph O'Leary]

Here is Olson at his most faux-naif and invidious: "Why is it that those we might generally call "social liberals" are so insistent on ending smoking but are, in most cases, equally staunch in their support of "gay rights"? The argument against smoking is usually said to be a matter of health and medical costs. But the same can be said about the consequences of acts engaged in by many homosexual men: they lead to disease (often fatal), early deaths, and all sorts of extraordinary medical costs. So why is one considered bad and one considered good?"

A man who is this stupid about human sexuality is bound to make a mess of a publishing house!

[Lutheran church]

Responding to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith aspects of the doctrine on the Church is interesting to know about it. In this the question to the answers is very good that should be accept by the questioner.

[Daniel]

I pray to the Lord for you Father. You are destroying the Church brick by brick.

Sodomy and committing homosexual acts are a sin. This is quite clear and always has been so. Why do you oppose the Church in supporting the forced acceptance of it as "normal" and "good" behavior. You are supposed to help save souls, not destroy them

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Daniel, society increasingly accepts gay couples, leaving the question of what they do in bed to their conscience. This seems to me to be a good development. Even in church pastoral practice, as outlined by Jan Visser co-author of Persona Humana 1975, it is advised to respect such couples. So I don't at all think the matter is as obvious and black-and-white as you believe. It is in the realm of disputed questions, as Luke Timothy Johnson points out.