From the CDF:

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].


Full document here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...stiones_en.html

I don't see how it can get any clearer than this.

Joe

Joe,


That was quick!

As to "imperfect communion" and "defectiveness": do you doubt for a minute that Latin Bishops who do their own thing without regard for the doctrine or traditions of the Church, or even the sensibilities (sensus fidei) of the faithful (including their own priests), are "defective" in their communion with the Catholic Church?

Cardinal Ratzinger says, with a note of exasperation (which I would have loved to have heard in person!) and partly directed at a then colleague (a friendly ghost! of sorts):


Best,
Michael

Joe,

I have read the CDF document. I don't think it changes anything, but simply reiterates certain key points -- primarily for the "benefit" of Latin Rite bishops and theologians, who seem to browse beyond the confines of the sheepfold at times. As a "Petrine exercise" of the unity of the Church, view it as the Shepherd shepherding the flock.

In fact, if the Church of Christ, the Universal Church, did not subsist somewhere, how could it be said that the Church of Christ is at all, in the Sacramental sense of the mystery of the Church?

The ecumenical "question" remains: "By what theological right, do we continue to justify not being in full communion with one another?"

Where truly justified reasons exist, our Churches have a duty to respond to that; where we can cooperate on the practical plane (praxeological ecumenism) such as on social remedies to ills such as abortion, we should do so in a heartbeat; and meanwhile we should strive to be the best followers of Christ that we know how to be.

Holiness and unity are both gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Best,
Michael

Michael, from an Orthodox point of view, the theological justification for not being in full communion is simply that we believe that Rome teaches false doctrines, particularly, the doctrines regarding the nature of the papacy. Some Orthodox would add to the list of false doctrines, including the filioque addition to the Creed, purgatory, etc. Other Orthodox theologians are comfortable regarding these as permissible theological opinions of the West, just as long as they are not regarding as Dogma. But virtually all Orthodox agree that there is no unity of faith between Rome and Orthodoxy and that at the very least, the dogmas regarding the authority and infallibility of the Pope are erroneous.

Joe

Joe,

With respect, I think your statement begs the question. As I view it, my understanding may be not quite as accurate and true, as that of Joseph Ratzinger (or Walter Kaspar, or supply any person) so my understanding needs to improve. I do not feel empowered to set conditions or hurdles that the Holy Spirit must meet or jump over. Why the Holy Spirit? Because, He is the Spirit of Christ, and the Cause of Unity. Unity is a vocation, a beckoning of His.

Any "condition" I could place is purely human (regardless of how important it might seem to me), and if the Church of Christ is anything, it is not a purely human reality (or even purely temporal and visible). In my heart of hearts, I am beginning to discern (with an assist from Cardinal Ratzinger and others) that ecclesial reconciliation between "me" and "you" cannot occur by simply looking backwards: the Holy Spirit is moving forwards, He has "been there, done that", and He is moving us on. It is for "me" to try to catch up.

Best,
Michael

Michael,

What concrete change do you think is necessary for reunion? In other words, if we are to look forward, what specific proposal regarding papal primacy would be acceptable to all parties involved?

Joe

Joe,



This may sound like a "cop-out", but in truth I don't have a "concrete proposal". I think when enough Catholics are striving to be faithful to the Lord within their tradition, and when enough Orthodox are striving to be faithful to the Lord within their tradition, one day (perhaps the Second Coming of Christ, perhaps sooner, I don't foresee any possibility of a "program") they/(we?) will look up and realize what needs to be done. That "day" will be a gift of the Holy Spirit.

They will all be firmly convinced that it is the will of God, and not to do so would be to offend Him. It will be an act of fidelity, not apostasy, on the part of all. It will be communion, so we will communicate fully.

Best,
Michael

P.S. Regarding the Primacy, the same exchange of letters has some beautiful formulations of how that might be understood in a mutually acceptable way. I cannot reproduce the entire text, but perhaps the idea.

The Primacy of agape (of which St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks, words repeated by Athenagoras in 1965 to Paul VI) can be understood to express what Vatican I used legalistic vocabulary to express. The point of the legalistic vocabulary of Vatican I regarding primacy, underscores the "unpredictability in advance by human beings" of how the Petrine Ministry might need to be exercised, while the restrictive clauses in the definition are intended to clarify that the Pope must exercise a "Primacy of obedience" in order to exercise appropriately the "Primacy of agape". [In other words, the emphasis of the legalistic language should not be on how those words would be interpreted in a secular society, public or private, but rather on the fact that one of the main purposes of the Petrine ministry is to preserve the unity of the Church, and human beings cannot know in advance what ways that ministry might be needed in the future -- any more than we can know what threats to the unity of the Church will arise in the future.]

On the other hand, "agape" in the Church ought not either be understood as some kind of "toothless good feeling", since in the Church it expresses mission, commitment, dedication, obedience, humility and service.

Alexandr:

Not a bad thought. The problem is that, like our dearth of prisons, I wonder if there were enough monasteries to hold all the bishops to be sent to them.

The second thing I would wonder is if some Latin monasteries might not be the worst places for bishops sent to them. Some have the most liberal thought propelling them and it might just be that bishops sent to them would end worse for the experience.

And, at the risk of seeming uncharitable, if they were sent to Eastern monasteries, would they not likely be such a disturbance to the life lived there that they'd be better off defrocked and let go?

In Christ,

BOB

Shrewd observations, Bob!

Let us pray that they will be converted.

Alexandr has yet to tell us what the conditions these less than "catholic" bishops would be kept under! Although I have my own ideas, I will leave to Alexandr to explain since it is his proposal and his dream. Elizabeth Maria, please clarify what you mean by converted!

Michael,

I think both you (and then Cardinal Ratzinger) have hit the nail on the proverbial head here. The issue in many ways is this tendency towards reducing the primacy to the acquisition of responsibility/power for the functioning of the universal Church. Roman centralism, while it has some benefits organizationally, is also quite problematic and disfigures the authentic exercise of the primacy.

The naming and appointment of bishops is one such example of this, as is the virtual reduction of the notion of the magisterium to a department in the Vatican. (Note that this is contrary to the teachings of Lumen Gentium at the Second Vatican Council.) The problem continues to be the balancing act the Pope must do as Patriarch of the Latin Church (aka "the West") where so many challenges exist on so many levels. Some centralization is necessary (and good) until the the "Benedictine Reforms" (my name) are fully implemented.

Pope Benedict has also said that a key issue in the exercise of the Petrine ministry has been the fusion and confusion of the tripartite ministry of the Pope in his functioning as Bishop of his local diocese, Patriarch of the Latin Church and Successor of Saint Peter. All three ministries inhere in his office, so it is easy to see how they can be confused.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

Let's give credit where it is due -- in this case to Cardinal Ratzinger, I'm just a "reporter".

One of the ironies of the post VCII period in the Latin Rite has been that the bishops seem to have difficulty balancing two aspects of their ministry: a) representing Christ in the diocese, and b) being in communion with the Pope, and a "sign" of communion to all in the diocese. I think the "cheerleaders" have been encouraging them to look defiant, but that doesn't sit well with the laity, whence all the criticism of bishops (not talking now about the sex abuse scandal).

I think they are beginning to see that the "cheerleaders" have been wrong all along, and are beginning to act (individually) in a more "responsible" way, which is part of what Cardinal Ratzinger, and now Pope Benedict, has been asking them to be (because that's what Vatican II called for). The laity do notice!

We will probably begin to see more of an Eastern synodal approach take shape (over the next 100 years or so!), which will take much of the "patriarch of the West" stuff off the Pope's shoulders (I don't think he wants it). The Bishops Conferences are not Synods, but Synods might grow out of a better understanding of why not.

Futuristicissimo: "The Vatican" has become the permanent home for the representatives of the various Synods of Bishops around the world, of all Rites, who are named "Cardinal" for their term of office, and who, along with Patriarchs from around the solar system are responsible for electing a new Pope when necessary, and who assist the Pope in the universal care for all the Churches. Normally, bishops are chosen by their Synods, with input from many sources, including the laity. In the Latin Rite, after decades of controversy, what started out as an approved English liturgy for a small number of converts from Anglicanism was adopted worldwide as the most elegant form of the Divine Liturgy of the Roman Rite in English. It has been hundreds of years since a European has served as the Bishop of Rome. The Patriarch of Mars constantly complains that he feels too isolated, and out of the loop. etc., etc., etc.

Best,
Michael

Personally, I would. But I can only speak for myself on these issues.

Alexandr

Does anyone know any of the details of the Patriarch's proposal?

http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;22800/

I wish Orthodox Catholic were still posting.

CDL

Dan,

This is being discussed here.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator