.jpg)
CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
RESPONSA AD QUAESTIONES DE ALIQUIBUS SENTENTIIS
AD DOCTRINAM DE ECCLESIA PERTINENTIBUS
RESPONSA AD QUAESTIONES DE ALIQUIBUS SENTENTIIS
AD DOCTRINAM DE ECCLESIA PERTINENTIBUS
Introductio
Ad catholicam profundius intelligendam ecclesiologiam nemo ignorat quantum Oecumenica Vaticana Synodus II contulerit, sive per dogmaticam Constitutionem Lumen gentium, sive per Decreta de Oecumenismo (Unitatis redintegratio) atque Orientalibus de Catholicis Ecclesiis (Orientalium Ecclesiarum). Ad hoc Romani autem Pontifices peropportune rem aestimaverunt penitus indagari, praesertim quod ad praxim recte dirigendam spectat: exinde Litterae Encyclicae Ecclesiam suam Pauli PP. VI (1964), necnon Ut unum sint (1995) Ioannis Pauli PP. II.
Multiplices ecclesiologiae facies ad profundius investigandas, minime consectaneum theologorum defuit officium, quod locum vero praebuit ut tempestive locupletissima studia florescerent. Sed si thema certo certius ferax evasit, nihilominus necessariis curis explanationibusque indiguit: quod evenit per Declarationem Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), per Epistulam Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopis Communionis notio (1992), per Declarationem Dominus Iesus (2000): documenta quae omnia a Congregatione pro Doctrina Fidei promulgata sunt.
Huiusmodi argumenti structuralis complexitas et quidem multarum propositionum novitas inintermisse excitant theologica studia haud semper immunia a deviationibus dubia incitantibus, quae haec Congregatio diligenti perscrutavit cura. Quamobrem – clarescente sub lumine integrae ac universae doctrinae circa Ecclesiam – mens est huius Congregationis necte firmare germanam significationem nonnullarum sententiarum ecclesiologicarum Magisterii, ne sana theologica disputatio interdum erroribus – ambiguitatis causa – offendatur.
RESPONSA AD QUAESTIONES
1. Quaeritur: Utrum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II mutaverit praecedentem doctrinam de Ecclesia ?
1. Quaeritur: Utrum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II mutaverit praecedentem doctrinam de Ecclesia ?
Respondetur: Noluit mutare, at evolvere, profundius intellegere et fecundius exponere voluit, nec eam mutavisse dicendum est.
Quod Ioannes XXIII incipiente Concilio dilucide affirmavit1. Quod Paulus VI repetivit (2) et in promulgatione Constitutionis Lumen gentium sic expressit: "Huius vero promulgationis potissimum commentarium illud esse videtur, quod per eam doctrina tradita nullo modo immutata est. Quod Christus voluit, id ipsum nosmetipsi volumus. Quod erat, permansit. Quae volventibus saeculis Ecclesia docuit, eadem et nos docemus. Tantummodo, id quod antea solum vitae actione continebatur, nunc aperta etiam doctrina exprimitur; quod usque adhuc considerationi, disputationi, atque ex parte etiam controversiis obnoxium erat, in certam doctrinae formulam nunc redactum est" (3). Eandem intentionem episcopi iterum iterumque manifestaverunt et consecuti sunt (4).
2. Quaeritur: Quomodo intelligendum sit Ecclesiam Christi subsistere in Ecclesia Catholica?
Respondetur: Christus unicam Ecclesiam "his in terris… constituit" et ut "coetum adspectabilem et communitatem spiritualem" (5) instituit, quae inde a sua origine in decursu historiae semper exsistit exsistetque et in qua sola permanserunt ac permanebunt omnia elementa ab eo instituta (6). "Haec est unica Christi Ecclesia, quam in Symbolo unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam profitemur […]. Haec Ecclesia in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a Successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata" (7).
Subsistentia in Constitutione Dogmatica Lumen gentium 8 est haec perpetua continuatio historica atque permanentia omnium elementorum a Christo institutorum in Ecclesia catholica (8), in qua Ecclesia Christi his in terris concrete invenitur.
Dum secundum doctrinam catholicam recte dici potest, Ecclesiam Christi in Ecclesiis et communitatibus ecclesialibus nondum plenam communionem cum Ecclesia catholica habentibus adesse et operari propter sanctificationis et veritatis elementa quae in illis sunt (9), verbum "subsistit" soli Ecclesiae catholicae ut singulare tantum attribuitur, quia refertur nempe ad notam unitatis in symbolis confessam (Credo…unam Ecclesiam); quae Ecclesia una subsistit in Ecclesia catholica (10).
3. Quaeritur: Quare vocabulum "subsistit in" et non simpliciter verbum "est" adhibetur ?
Respondetur: Usus vocabuli retinentis plenam identitatem Ecclesiae Christi et Ecclesiae Catholicae doctrinam de Ecclesia non immutat, rationem tamen habet veritatis, apertius significans quod extra eius compaginem "elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis" inveniuntur, "quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria ad unitatem catholicam impellunt" (11).
"Proinde ipsae Ecclesiae et communitates seiunctae, etsi defectus illas pati credimus, nequaquam in mysterio salutis significatione et pondere exutae sunt. Iis enim Spiritus Christi uti non renuit tamquam salutis mediis, quorum virtus derivatur ab ipsa plenitudine gratiae et veritatis quae Ecclesiae catholicae concredita est" (12).
4. Quaeritur: Quare Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II Ecclesiis orientalibus a plena communione Ecclesiae catholicae seiunctis nomen "Ecclesiae" attribuit?
Respondetur: Concilium usum traditionalem nominis accipere voluit. "Cum autem illae Ecclesiae quamvis seiunctae, vera sacramenta habeant, praecipue vero, vi successionis apostolicae, Sacerdotium et Eucharistiam, quibus arctissima necessitudine adhuc nobiscum coniunguntur" (13), titulum merentur "Ecclesiae particulares vel locales" (14), et Ecclesiae sorores Ecclesiarum particularium catholicarum nuncupantur (15).
"Proinde per celebrationem Eucharistiae Domini in his singulis Ecclesiis, Ecclesia Dei aedificatur et crescit" (16). Quia autem communio cum Ecclesia catholica, cuius visibilis Caput est Episcopus Romae ac Successor Petri, non est quoddam complementum Ecclesiae particulari ab extra adveniens, sed unum e principiis internis quibus ipsa constituitur, conditio Ecclesiae particularis, qua potiuntur venerabiles illae communitates christianae, defectu tamen afficitur (17).
"Proinde per celebrationem Eucharistiae Domini in his singulis Ecclesiis, Ecclesia Dei aedificatur et crescit" (16). Quia autem communio cum Ecclesia catholica, cuius visibilis Caput est Episcopus Romae ac Successor Petri, non est quoddam complementum Ecclesiae particulari ab extra adveniens, sed unum e principiis internis quibus ipsa constituitur, conditio Ecclesiae particularis, qua potiuntur venerabiles illae communitates christianae, defectu tamen afficitur (17).
Ex altera parte, plenitudo catholicitatis Ecclesiae propria, a Successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernatae, propter divisionem christianorum impeditur in historia plene consummanda (18).
5. Quaeritur: Cur textus Concilii et Magisterii subsequentis communitatibus natis ex Reformatione saeculi XVI titulum Ecclesiae non attribuunt?
Respondetur: Quia secundum doctrinam catholicam hae communitates successionem apostolicam in sacramento Ordinis non habent, ideoque elemento essentiale Ecclesiam constitutivo carent. Illae communitates ecclesiales, quae, praesertim propter sacerdotii ministerialis defectum, genuinam atque integram substantiam Mysterii eucharistici non servant (19), secundum doctrinam catholicam Ecclesiae sensu proprio (20) nominari non possunt.
SS.mus Dominus Noster Benedictus PP. XVI, in Audientia infrascripto Cardinali Praefecto Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei concessa, supradicta responsa in Conventu Ordinario huius Congregationis deliberata, rata habuit, confirmavit et publici iuris fieri iussit.
Datum Romae, ex Aedibus Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei, die XXIX mensis iunii MMVII, in solemnitate Ss. Petri et Pauli, Apostolorum.
Gulielmus Cardinalis LevadaPraefectus
+ Angelus Amato, S.D.B.Archiepiscopus tit. Silensis Secretarius
_______________________
+ Angelus Amato, S.D.B.Archiepiscopus tit. Silensis Secretarius
_______________________
1 IOANNES XXIII, Allocutio 11. Oct. 1962: "… Concilium… integram, non imminutam, non detortam tradere vult doctrinam Catholicam…Verumtamen in praesenti oportet ut universa doctrina christiana, nulla parte inde detracta, his temporibus nostris ab omnibus accipiatur novo studio, mentibus serenis atque pacatis…Oportet ut, quemadmodum cuncti sinceri rei christianae, catholicae, apostolicae fautores vehementer exoptant, eadem doctrina amplius et altius cognoscatur …Oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis, cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra. Est enim aliud ipsum depositum fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina nostra continentur, aliud modus, quo eaedem enuntiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia": AAS 54 [1962] 791; 792.
2 Cf. PAULUS VI, Allocutio 29 Sep. 1963: AAS 55 [1963] 847-852.
3 PAULUS VI, Allocutio 21. Nov. 1964: AAS 56 [1964] 1009-1010.
4 Sacra Synodus exprimere voluit identitatem Ecclesiae Christi et Ecclesiae Catholicae. Quod invenitur in disceptationibus de Decreto Unitatis redintegratio. Schema Decreti in Aula die 23. Sept. 1964 Relatione propositum est. (Act Syn III/II 296-344). Modis ab Episcopis postea missis, Secretariatus pro Unitate Christianorum respondit die 10. Nov. 1964 (Act Syn III/VII 11-49). Ex Expensione modorum quattuor textus de primo responso hic referuntur:
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. etiam ibidem n. 5.
C) [In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 296s]
"5 - Clarius dicendum esset veram Ecclesiam esse solam Ecclesiam catholicam romanam...
"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). Commissio quidem de emendationibus Decreti Unitatis redintegratio iudicans, dilucide exprimit identitatem Ecclesiae Christi et Ecclesiae Catholicae atque eius unicitatem, retinens huius doctrinae fundamentum in Constitutione Dogmatica Lumen gentium consistere.
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). Hae duae sententiae inveniuntur in Decreto Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 et 3.1.
5 Cf. CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, 8.1.
6 Cf. CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 3.2; 3.4; 3.5; 4.6.
7 CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, 8.2.
8 Cf. CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI, Decl. Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.1: AAS 65 [1973] 397 ; Decl. Dominus Iesus, 16.3: AAS 92 [2000-II] 757-758; Notificatio de scripto P. Leonardi Boff, OFM, "Chiesa: carisma e potere": AAS 77 [1985] 758-759.
9 Cf. IOANNES PAULUS II, Litt. Enc. Ut unum sint, 11.3: AAS 87 [1995-II] 928.
10 Cf. CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, 8.2.
11 CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, 8.2.
12 CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, DECR. UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 3.4.
13 CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 15.3; cf. CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI, Litt. Communionis notio, 17.2: AAS 85 [1993-II] 848.
14 Cf. Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 14.1.
15 Cf. CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 14. 1; IOANNES PAULUS II, Litt. Enc. Ut unum sint, 56 s : AAS 87 [1995-II] 954 s.
16 CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 15.1.
17 Cf. CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI, Litt. Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
18 Cf. CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI, Litt. Communionis notio, 17.3: AAS 85 [1993-II] 849.
19 Cf. CONCILIUM OECUMENICUM VATICANUM II, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, 22.3.
20 Cf. CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI, Decl. Dominus Iesus, 17.2: AAS 92 [2000-II] 758.
_______________________
Official Vatican English Translation:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH
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 Council (1). Paul VI affirmed it (2) 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 intention (4).
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 Church (8), 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 Churches (15).
"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 churches (17).
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 history (18).
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 Mystery (19) cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense (20).
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 Council (1). Paul VI affirmed it (2) 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 intention (4).
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 Church (8), 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 Churches (15).
"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 churches (17).
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 history (18).
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 Mystery (19) cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense (20).
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.
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.
6 comments:
What's your opinion of this document? I found it to be very disappointing; it seems like simply more of the same Vatican II-isms. I'd be interested to know your take on it.
Is this document the first Vatican statement to use the term "instruments of salvation" when referring to non-Catholic sects ? I haven't all the footnotes to hand.It also seems a new idea that The Church of Christ is present in them (Second question response)as opposed to God working through the minds and consciences of individual members. On the first page,para.2, maybe the key is the phrase "the novelty of many of the themes". I am interested in your comments on the whole Response. Here in Ireland it was hailed as a Fundamentalist return to pre-V II theology,especially being close to the John XXIII Missal M.P.It was front page news in the prestigious and secularist Irish Times. Was the M.P. the Trojan Horse being dragged in letting the revolutionary theology of the RESPONSE out,especially prior to a Vatican summer close-down ? Was the idea to let the traditionalists have their "attachments" to their Mass as long as there's no theology involved ? See Fr Cekada's MOTU PROPRIO TRAP article.I look forward to your thoughts,always so balanced and interesting on this an any other aspects of the crisis of faith and theology.
Alan Robinson (rpienne@eircom.net)
Although I would require more time to analyze exactly what is being said, I will share with you my first impressions.
1) The document at least has one positive element: it very clearly admits the identity between the "Church of Christ" and the Catholic Church. It also flat out states that Lumen Gentium DID NOT intend to change any of the traditional ecclesiology. (So we, traditionalists, can bring back our traditional manuals of ecclesiology and no one can tell us that "Vatican II changed all that.") This is a long-awaited clarification from the Vatican; and I am glad it came out. It is, in any case, certainly better than Lumen Gentium's statement that "the Church of Christ SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church"--which was scandalous, at least in the way it was normally interpreted.
2) However, the new document is still problematic. It seems to say that there IS salvation outside the Church (I gather that from the claim that "other ecclesiastical communities have elements of sanctification/salvation"). The question is whether it actually says this; i.e., whether what is actually said can be reconciled with previous Catholic teaching.
3) First of all, I don't have much of a problem, at least theologically, with the claim that there are "elements of truth" in false religions or heretical sects, because it is true: the Orthodox are right in confessing the Real Presence; the Protestants are right in professing the Divinity of Christ; the Muslims are right in their denial of polytheism; etc. They have SOME elements of truth: this is not false and, therefore, not problematic--at least theologically.
Pastorally, however, it could be confusing to the people. It could be misinterpreted as saying "hey, heretical movements aren't so bad: they teach some things that are true! Let's not condemn them and, in fact, let's commend them for what they say." They ARE bad and the Church MUST condemn them, regardless of whether they say some things that are true. Saying SOME things that are true is not an indication that a movement is good. Even Satanism says some things that are true! Given this pastoral danger, it may be imprudent or unwise for the Pope to say such a thing (but that doesn't mean it is false).
4) The real theological problem is not that the document says "there are elements of TRUTH in other religions." The real problem, theologically, is to say that there are elements of SANCTIFICATION in other religions." That seems to be (SEEMS to be), not just unwise, or imprudent, but downright false and heretical, because it seems to contradict the revealed dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.
At least it SEEMS... but maybe there is one interpretation that can be reconciled with traditional Catholic doctrine.
If I were to try to find a solution (i.e., a reconciliation between the traditional doctrine and the new document's claim about SANCTIFICATION in other religions), the following thoughts come to mind:
It is certainly true, and it has been acknowledged by theologians for centuries, that the following situation is possible:
a) an infant is validly baptized in a non-Catholic "church" (e.g., a protestant church);
b) he dies before reaching the age of reason and before he is taught to renounce the "errors of the Whore of Babylon" (i.e., the One, True, Catholic Church);
c) he goes to heaven;
d) in fact, theologians always taught that in such a case, the child is, and always was, Catholic--from the time of Baptism until his death.
As long as the child does not commit any sins against the faith, particularly the sin of heresy (which most other members of his "church" do commit)--and he can't because he hasn't reached the age of reason--he is Catholic, because he received the fullness of the virtue of Faith plus Hope, Charity, and sanctifying grace through Baptism--just as we did who were Baptized inside of a Catholic parish, by a Catholic priest.
In that case, one could say it is true that "his ecclesial community was an instrument of sanctification," in the sense that he was given sanctifying grace through the baptismal action of the heretics who operate that "ecclesial community."
However, this must NOT be understood in the sense that he received salvation outside the Church (or worse yet, THROUGH his "church"). He was a Catholic, and he died within the Church. And that is the only way anyone can be saved, at least since Christ instituted the Church and the sacrament of Baptism.
So, while there is no salvation outside the Church (period), more people are within the Church than meets the eye. This can include people whom we assume are non-Catholic, but who in fact are because they were validly baptized and have never renounced their Faith.
5) In conclusion: what the document means, I do not know. But we cannot be bound to believe any of it unless all of it is perfectly compatible with the traditional Catholic theology. Its compatibility lies in the interpreting the claim that false religions are somehow "instruments of salvation" without that denying the dogma of no salvation outside the Church--as it has ALWAYS been understood, and not simply as it has been understood by 20th Century liberals.
The document, then, is partly good because it very clearly states the identity between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ; but then suddently it cannot seem to control its ecumenical urge to stirr the muddy waters again when it begins talking about false religions as "instruments of salvation."
With regard to the elements of sanctification, perhaps Rome will issue another clarification? But the statement in itself, IMHO, doesn't even appears to be heretical or false. The statement simply is a truism, a fact-of-the-mater affirmation of what traditional Catholic theology itself teaches.
On the subject of EENS, one the best books that I've read so far is Monsignor Fenton's "The Catholic Church & Salvation - In Light of Recent Magisterial Pronouncements" [1958]; and one of the things he notes in the book is the possibility of material heretics and schismatics being saved either through perfect contrition or the sacraments that may validly retain (examples being baptism and confession). If such is the case, then, I don't see how it is contrary to Catholic teaching to view these false sects as being used by God as instruments (sort of like how Russia will be used as an instrument by God, according to Our Lady of Fatima) to further the cause of the salvation of certain souls. And this can be done in number of ways, of course, as God can bring numerous positive effects out of evil.
Thanks for these valuable comments and reactions. I am pleased and will study a paper copy today. Again,I thank you for your answers and the work that you do in your integrally Thomistic blog.
Alan Robinson
(rpienne@eircom.net )
Professor,
This documents clarifies nothing. It just repeats what Vatican II said, which was full of ambiguities. The way the Vatican II teaching was implemented during the last 40 years is proof of what it actually teaches. Nothing much will change.
If the pope really wants to put an end to this controversy, then he should use his full papal authority and make a dogmatic pronouncement. But of course this will never happen since the Vatican II teaching is an error.
Post a Comment